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. Malisha
    I welcome anything Mr. Davies cares to comment about. Honestly, southerne bell needs to talk to someone. But not here. THis isn’t a domestic abuse site and shouldn’t be used for one. I feel bad for her but jjjeeeeezzzz.I watch that show she’s talking about and I see nothing wrong with it. It just takes you thru a case. all the players just happen to be black teens. Coincidence, that’s all it is.

  2. Bandages on Z’s head three days after the shooting? Wow.

    Political struggles within the police force in which Zimmerman may have taken part? Wow.

    Reason for or against the police to deal with the crime all wrong? Who needs it?

    Personal need for each cop to think he should deal with a crime situation regardless of whether he likes or dislikes the suspect? Yeah, gimme somma that!

    How’s your husband doing?

  3. tony c
    Haven’t been on here for a while. Just dropped back by to see if anything new had developed. Also wanted to know if anyone had heard the meeting played on news in the last couple of days where Z. bashes the Sanford Police Officer. I haven’t seen any comments on it. I saw the video of Z. walking in the station, police station. He had bandages on the back of his head. This was three days after the shooting. And the audio of the bashing he gave S. P. was scalding to that one police officer. I also heard the repoet that he was working with the same police to establish the Neigh. Watch program. Also heard after requestioning witnesses they have came out with different answers. I think it was southern sumthing….that stated a very long time ago, maybe even on another blog, that eye witness testimony was one of the most inaccurate testimony. A history olf wrongful conviction. It wasn’t the best night for hearing/seeing anything. Just wondered what comments were being posted here.

  4. I wonder if we could get Paul G. Davies from UCLA to come onto this thread and give us a little analysis of the group psychology, intergroup psychology, and social psychology issues being displayed here:

    http://davies.socialpsychology.org/

    [insert group of smiley faces, different colors]

  5. Reading a few of the other threads, I have noticed a tendency (and on one person’s part, more than a tendency, in fact an all-out campaign) to promote the argument that Trayvon Martin really needed to be killed that night. Why is that? Those who support that outrageous idea (I will call them “Zistems” for Zimmerman Support Team Members) start with the “fact” that he was not perfect, although he was an honor student who had never been charged with a crime.

    Right at this point, we should stop and admit that we do not have Zimmerman’s high school records; nor do we know if he was charged with any crimes as a juvenile because, absent improper leaks like the ones that put this stuff about Martin out on the web, a person’s juvenile record is not publicly available.

    But OK, that starts it. He did this or that thing in high school.

    The next thing you know, the Zistems tell us that Trayvon Martin was just a “thug.” At that point, it was not about what Zimmerman DID, it was about what Martin DESERVED. Did he deserve protection? Many Zistems stopped thinking he did. Why not? Because instead of seeing him as a sweet-faced kid, they were now justified in seeing him as a “thug.” And although it was Zimmerman, and not Martin, who had a documented history of violence, we did not hear about the young woman thrown across the room at a party any more, or the girlfriend getting a protective order, or the assault on an ATF officer…we heard that Martin was a “thug.”

    The next step, of course, is to frankly adopt Zimmerman’s attitude toward Martin. The Zistems do that. They then conclude that (a) Zimmerman had a right to follow and essentially discipline the Thug he saw in “his” neighborhood; and that (b) the Thug threw the first punch and in fact viciously beat Zimmerman so that he feared for his life; and that (c) the Upstanding citizen, being beaten, had to kill his attacker.

    They even go so far as that cop in New Orleans, LA (Jason Giroir) who said that since Trayvon Martin had lived like a thug, he died like one. That cop was immediately suspended by his Chief of Police, who then began a proceeding to fire him outright, but he went ahead and resigned before he was actually fired. If you look at the official response to saying that, you can understand some real elements of police work.

    Police are sworn to uphold the public trust and to protect the public by enforcing the laws. The NO police chief believed that a guy who said the victim of an unprovoked homicide died like a thug because he lived like one was a violation of that oath, and I think he was absolutely right. Now people who simply hold opinions or who comment on blogs are not held to the same standard as police officers, but adopting this offensive and anti-democratic (thus anti-American) position is really substandard in my opinion anyway.

    But looking at the peculiar idea the Zistems have come up with, that Tryvon Martin was acting like a “thug” or living like a “thug” and that therefore, the transaction between Zimmerman and Martin was “Good Guy to Thug,” it is transparently racist.

    Can anybody really pretend that if a 28-year-old Black man with a spotty employment history, no college degree, and two past run-ins with the law for violent behavior were to shoot an unarmed white teen-ager who was carrying a cell phone, candy and iced tea, that we would be saying the white kid had “lived like a thug” and deserved to die like one? It is beyond belief!

    The only reason the Zistems have graduated in organized indignant defensiveness to the point of condemning Martin for being a “thug” is that they actually do not think a person should be prosecuted for killing someone THEY regard as a “thug.” This is exactly the problem.

    All the nonsense being spouted about Trayvon Martin is de minimis if even true (and much of it probably is not true). He’s not running for president where you scrutinize his whole school career to see what kind of person he was. He was not trying to win any awards on 2/26/2012 for perfection, politeness or promotion. He was walking home in the rain, was assaulted, tried to defend himself, and was killed.

    The Hiller Armaments people from Virginia expressed the Zistems’ hideous idea very well: “We think George Zimmerman is innocent and that he shot a thug.”

    In other words, you can make yourself innocent of murder if your victim is called a thug. How convenient. Especially if you get to choose which people you will call thugs and kill! I actually could go for that myself.

    Once people

  6. Trials are not carried out hopefully.
    Otherwise, fine. We shall see and I shall keep playing on the playground.

  7. Its very apparent that you are not ‘scared’ to be thought of as a racist.
    Clearly you are which lends credence to the possibility that your view of this tragedy is VERY BIASED. It is sad that you would think that typing out so much as you do would somehow vindicate your prejudicial and completely one-sided points of view. Live your life in this ‘playground’ Hopefully if there is a trial it will be conducted with a respect for EVERYONE’S rights.

  8. Bosco Bosco Bosco, it is “accusatory projection” that I have met many times before. It’s a psychological thing. It’s when somebody gets riled up because they have a little voice inside them saying they’re wrong about something, and they can’t stand hearing that little voice, so they up and shout at someone else: “It’s not me who did bad; it must be YOU!”

    But as to my being a racist, Bosco, let’s you and me talk about that one. I have a friend, we call each other sister, and she’s African American, and I’m white, and we do not have any of the same parents or grandparents. During the OJ furor, she called me one time (I remember she was in New York and I was in New Jersey) and she said a friend of hers insisted OJ was guilty, and she called him a racist, and he denied being a racist and said he believed OJ was guilty because of non-racist issues. She asked my opinion. I asked, “My opinion of OJ, my opinion of whether [John Doe] is racist or not, what opinion?”

    All of it, she answered. “Give me all your answers, because you’re NOT a racist.”

    So I corrected her, saying, “I am racist, first of all…”
    and she interrupted me, “No you’re not.”

    I explained, “Yes I AM. I was raised in this country and I think all of us who were have some degree of some kind of racism, and I’m aware of that, and I accept that, but when I notice it, I try to educate myself a little better so it doesn’t take over.”

    She gave me a chance to answer the rest.

    Malisha: OK then, starting at the top. I think OJ is guilty. And I am racist, to a certain degree. But I do NOT think OJ is guilty BECAUSE I am racist.

    And then she let me explain my whole theory of the OJ case, and she and I had differing opinions of it at that time. (Later, after OJ was acquitted and got out, she came to believe that he had been guilty. Her reasons were different from mine.)

    Well Bosco, I’m not scared of being thought of as racist. When I first meet most people, if they’re African American I am more likely to think they were poor growing up, regardless of what their income may be now. I’m more likely to think a hundred other things that have no real basis in reality and as I get to know them better, I may find out that 99 of the 100 “more likely things” I may have thought of them are not true. Even the one where I may think they’ll be either politically or intellectually more “hip” and/or emotionally flexible may turn out to be wrong. AND I have plenty of other prejudices. I probably think Italians are going to be more musical, Germans are going to be more regimented and critical, blah blah blah. But I’m not going to let it hijack my brain. I’m not going to let me lead me to the conclusion that a guy can decide some kid is “suspicious,” and then follow him, confront him and shoot him dead and then walk away. I’m going to insist that I do my mental homework and in the Zimmerman case, I did it, and I’m satisfied with the result.

  9. Maybe,,just MAYBE you have “met it many times before.” i.e accused of being a RACIST, because—you ARE?? Just maybe -Malicious(Malisha)??

  10. You don’t answer pointed / direct questions because you >cannot backup< any of your own words and claims which are CONJECTURES at best based upon innuendos ,RACISM and ignorance. Your pathetic responses, no matter how long winded ,are weight-less.

  11. Well Bosco, I didn’t get that “amazed” and “not amazed” comment but whatever.

    I, for one, am not amazed that you call me racist. It’s called accusatory projection and I’ve met it many times before.

  12. Bosco, you switched from amazed to “not amazed” but that’s OK. I’ll just put it down to a flip flop.

    I don’t answer your A B and C questions, Bosco. Even when you demand that. I tell you what I feel like telling you and I stubbornly hold my own opinions and I persistently come to my own conclusions. In fact, like some others on this thread, the new evidence made me think the case was UNDERcharged, not OVERcharged.

    One of the issues is that it seems hard for some folks to handle the concept that Trayvon Martin had no obligation to respond to, respect, answer, satisfy, or deal in friendly manner with Herr Zimmerman. Herr Zimmerman was not the Fuhrer of anything; he was a creepy, crazy guy who was following a teen-ager for no known (by the teen-ager) reason.

    Could Martin have thought to himself, “Maybe if I am really docile and polite, he won’t do anything bad to me,” as Zimmerman approached? Sure he could have. SHOULD he have? Not necessarily. He was, according to our Constitution, free. Since he did not know Zimmerman and had no obligation to him, and since Zimmerman was not an official of the government or even an official of any duly constituted official organization, Martin had no obligation to regard him as anything other than “some creepy, crazy guy who is following me.”

    Remaining non-hostile and unthreatening to a creepy crazy guy who is following you is not always a good idea. Why anyone would expect it of Trayvon Martin is beyond me and it’s beyond reason.

    Some people carry on about violence, from Martin’s end of this equation. (The equation was Zimmerman activated plus Martin defensive = Zimmerman kills Martin.) Me, not so much. I’m not concerned about it, because if Martin assumed that (a) Zimmerman was mentally unbalanced; and/or that (b) Zimmerman could very possibly be a hostile racist person out looking for trouble; and/or that (c) Zimmerman could be packing heat,

    then any level of self-defensive violence on Martin’s part was justified. Nobody has to prove that Zimmerman’s injuries were minimalist (although obviously they were).

    Martin did not have to view Zimmerman as a non-threatening normal person that night, and he probably DIDN’T view him that way. For him to have done so might have come out better or worse, but that’s on Zimmerman. Even if Zimmerman gets off scott free, he will probably never in life enjoy a feeling of safety and security, and he will probably never succeed at anything he tries, because this mess he created is not fixable by any means.

  13. ..by the way you never answered A. B. or C.
    I’m not ‘amazed’ by that either. Racist

  14. How you would interpret my words as me being..”Amazed” is an attempt at distraction and simply put -stupid .
    Maybe you see yourself and your words as ‘Amazing’
    If so, you are very wrong.
    I’m not amazed to see that in all of your convoluted words and suspicions you can defined as a RACIST.. which is what you are ,,a one sided racist.

  15. Bosco, let me amaze you a little more.

    If Zimmerman had done everything that he said he did that night, and everything that was recorded on the call he made to the police AND the following calls, and it WAS Zimmerman yelling “help help help” on the tapes, and

    If Trayvon Martin got his gun AWAY from him and fired (or int he struggle one or both of them fired) and the bullet hit Zimmerman in the heart, and Zimmerman died, and Martin was arrested,

    THEN I would say that the probability was VERY HIGH that Martin had killed Zimmerman in self-defense.

    I would say that the SYG law would have applied to that act on Martin’s part had he shot Zimmerman that night. Because I think logic would have told us that Zimmerman was OBVIOUSLY threatening to Martin’s life at the time that Martin — or both of them while struggling for control of the gun — pulled the trigger.

    Amazing, huh?

    And why? Because Zimmerman came into the scene with the gun, the loaded gun, and HE KNEW that he had a loaded gun, and he voluntarily and deliberately put himself into that scene with a loaded gun and his own intentions and his own agenda. Martin was minding his own business talking on the cell phone to his girlfriend and had no interest in Zimmerman or any of Zimmerman’s issues. Martin was just standing his ground.

  16. Bosco, I don’t know why you’re so amazed, you have been saying that I am all wrong in what I say since the beginning, so your amazement now is what I would call pretty old!

    Get me clearly on this one: I had opinions at the beginning and stated them and they have not changed and none of the new evidence revealed has changed those opinions. Here they are:

    Zimmerman was within his rights up to the point where he began to follow Martin, and NOT THEREAFTER. I don’t have to prove that and your disagreeing with it is fine but you haven’t proved it to be untrue.

    Zimmerman did NOT have a right to follow Martin without accepting the fact that there could very well be unintended and/or negative consequences to that act.

    Zimmerman did NOT have a right to complain about being hurt if, as a result of his following Martin, he got hurt by Martin. No matter HOW MUCH he got hurt! He chose to follow. He had no guarantee that act would not scare the target of his following. Predators follow their prey; a kid being followed could easily presume that someone following him was a PREDATOR trying to make him his PREY.

    Zimmerman did NOT have a right to respond to a fisticuffs with an armed assault resulting in death. No matter who saw him underneath, no matter what happened to his nose, no matter what, period, no right. He sought out the “asshole” who was trying to “run” and he produced a confrontation and no new evidence changes that. Not one little shred of new evidence changes that or ever can.

    But of course, you can continue to be amazed. There may be studies somewhere that being amazed is good for your health or something; I hope so, for your sake.

  17. Malisha,
    Its amazing to me that you would not take ownership of your very OWN WORDS.
    And then, you would continue on with your psychobabble in 3 long winded comments after my last one which is an obvious attempt at diversion.

    Your words-“..the recent release of information is all very well, but it was not previously released..”
    WHO said it WAS?? Not I, My words-“..ALL crime scenes are RECORDED-they stated that they were going to suppress all of the facts and they DID”

    Your words-“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..”
    This is YOUR psychobabble at its finest.

    I challenge you to back up your claims
    A)”. the illogical leaps you make” Take ownership of YOUR words and show proof of my ‘illogical claims’ I only demand unbiased examination.
    B)”..view that Zimmerman did no wrong” find MY words that state that!Am I being profiled by you? YES I am.
    C)”..killing a kid he thought nobody would care about.That view is common (fortunately, only among 25% of Americans)”

    Backup this prejudicial sounding statement with facts!
    Your claiming that Zimmerman and 25% of Americans would not care about a black 17 year old’s death!! Where do you get your insight and numbers from ? If you cant respond with accredited verifiable proof of that allegation then you, my friend, are 100% biased AND sadly a racist to boot.

Comments are closed.