George Zimmerman's bloody head

[old navy]

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

You are wrong.

In 30 plus years of treating wounds of all types, I see wounds on ZMan that could be caused by the head being bashed against concrete. If someone sucker-punched me and commenced to dribble my cranium on the sidewalk, I would put hollowpoints center of mass.

I am anxious to see the postmortum report which hopefully will describe the angle of entry of the bullet and distance of the shooter, etc.

I bet the jury will be interested in that as well.

 

[Bigfoot]

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

Silly.

 

[paperview]

EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.

Prosecutors have seen that.

 

[Liability]

EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.

Prosecutors have seen that.

Reports may not trump photographs.

The reports MIGHT add some light or they might cause some smoke. Combine them with actual medical records, maybe an x-ray (who knows) and you may end up with something.

And just because the special prosecutor saw a report from some EMT (assuming she did), does not mean that she took it properly into account, either.

 

[PredFan]

The only question will be does the evidence and the eyewitness testimony support GZ's case or dispute it. If they cannot prove that the incident went down in a way otyher than what GZ said, he walks. The blood on the back of his head supports his story. It doesn't have to be severe, it only has to show that Zimmerman and the eyewitnesses were being truthful.

 

[PredFan]

I have heard, in the past few days, several other lawyers (other than Dershowitz) complaining about the affadavit, and saying that the Prosecutor failed miserably. There is no way that she will get a 2nd degree murder charge to stick.

 

[paperview]

And it's not "Freely flowing", it's mostly dried up.

The photo came from the DEFENDANT'S father............................

I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

The father was not there the night of the incident, afaik.

 

[paperview]

EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.

Prosecutors have seen that.

Reports may not trump photographs.

The reports MIGHT add some light or they might cause some smoke. Combine them with actual medical records, maybe an x-ray (who knows) and you may end up with something.

And just because the special prosecutor saw a report from some EMT (assuming she did), does not mean that she took it properly into account, either.

Yes, reports by trained medical professionals DO trump images that were not taken by police.

Do you know the chain of custody of the photo in question?

I'm going to make a bold leap and say: NO.

Dunk, slammed.

 

[Liability]

EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.

Prosecutors have seen that.

Reports may not trump photographs.

The reports MIGHT add some light or they might cause some smoke. Combine them with actual medical records, maybe an x-ray (who knows) and you may end up with something.

And just because the special prosecutor saw a report from some EMT (assuming she did), does not mean that she took it properly into account, either.

Yes, reports by trained medical professionals DO trump images that were not taken by police.

Do you know the chain of custody of the photo in question?

I'm going to make a bold leap and say: NO.

Dunk, slammed.

NO. They don't. You are making shit up without ANY shred of proper factual underpinning.

There is no such "rule."

Indeed, if the jury were to credit the photograph (without caring about who took the picture) and if, upon a good cross examination, the jury discredited to some extent the adequacy of the EMTs' factual reporting, the fact is, the jury could reject the EMT report in its entirety if they felt that justice called for that result.

And yes. In fact, we DO know something about the image. We know it was taken on a cell phone camera. We know it came embedded with information about the image including the "when it was taken" component. We know it was taken three minutes from when we know the gun was shot.

You went for a slam dunk and missed the hoop.

 

[Peach]

And it's not "Freely flowing", it's mostly dried up.

The photo came from the DEFENDANT'S father............................

I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

The father was not there the night of the incident, afaik.

It was released by him or so I read.

 

[KissMy]

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

You are wrong.

In 30 plus years of treating wounds of all types, I see wounds on ZMan that could be caused by the head being bashed against concrete. If someone sucker-punched me and commenced to dribble my cranium on the sidewalk, I would put hollowpoints center of mass.

I am anxious to see the postmortum report which hopefully will describe the angle of entry of the bullet and distance of the shooter, etc.

I bet the jury will be interested in that as well.

Absolutely - Getting your nose busted & head bashed on concrete will usually knock you out before it causes a gash.

During the bail hearing the investigator said that the gunshot left powder burns on Martins hoody that were visible to the naked eye at night while they were performing CPR on him. He also said there was stippling on Martin's skin. That means the gun was about 6" away.

 

[PredFan]

Reports may not trump photographs.

The reports MIGHT add some light or they might cause some smoke. Combine them with actual medical records, maybe an x-ray (who knows) and you may end up with something.

And just because the special prosecutor saw a report from some EMT (assuming she did), does not mean that she took it properly into account, either.

Yes, reports by trained medical professionals DO trump images that were not taken by police.

Do you know the chain of custody of the photo in question?

I'm going to make a bold leap and say: NO.

Dunk, slammed.

NO. They don't. You are making shit up without ANY shred of proper factual underpinning.

There is no such "rule."

Indeed, if the jury were to credit the photograph (without caring about who took the picture) and if, upon a good cross examination, the jury discredited to some extent the adequacy of the EMTs' factual reporting, the fact is, the jury could reject the EMT report in its entirety if they felt that justice called for that result.

And yes. In fact, we DO know something about the image. We know it was taken on a cell phone camera. We know it came embedded with information about the image including the "when it was taken" component. We know it was taken three minutes from when we know the gun was shot.

You went for a slam dunk and missed the hoop.

She couldn't slam dunk a donut into a swimming pool of coffee.

 

[paperview]

Reports may not trump photographs.

The reports MIGHT add some light or they might cause some smoke. Combine them with actual medical records, maybe an x-ray (who knows) and you may end up with something.

And just because the special prosecutor saw a report from some EMT (assuming she did), does not mean that she took it properly into account, either.

Yes, reports by trained medical professionals DO trump images that were not taken by police.

Do you know the chain of custody of the photo in question?

I'm going to make a bold leap and say: NO.

Dunk, slammed.

NO. They don't. You are making shit up without ANY shred of proper factual underpinning.

There is no such "rule."

Indeed, if the jury were to credit the photograph (without caring about who took the picture) and if, upon a good cross examination, the jury discredited to some extent the adequacy of the EMTs' factual reporting, the fact is, the jury could reject the EMT report in its entirety if they felt that justice called for that result.

And yes. In fact, we DO know something about the image. We know it was taken on a cell phone camera. We know it came embedded with information about the image including the "when it was taken" component. We know it was taken three minutes from when we know the gun was shot.

You went for a slam dunk and missed the hoop.

Ok, pumpernickel, we'll go with your suggestion the jury will disregard the EMS report (and the pictures police no doubt have taken - if they didn't more incompetence from the SPD) --and go with an low resolution image with chain of custody issues.

Whatever you say, scrapheap.

 

[paperview]

The photo came from the DEFENDANT'S father............................

I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

The father was not there the night of the incident, afaik.

It was released by him or so I read.

No. His father said at the Bond hearing he only saw the image through the media.

His father *did* testify he saw his son the next day, and saw two vertical wounds on the back of Z' head.

 

[Peach]

I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

The father was not there the night of the incident, afaik.

It was released by him or so I read.

No. His father said at the Bond hearing he only saw the image through the media.

His father *did* testify he saw his son the next day, and saw two vertical wounds on the back of Z' head.

Thanks, I guess the EMT report will carry more weight since there was no hospitalization the night of the killing.

 

[KissMy]

The photo is admissible. It was taken by a witness who heard the scuffle. The photos encrypted GPS data proves it was taken by the witness 3 minutes after the shooting at the location of the scuffle. "The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the scuffle that night, but did hear it. The person recalled seeing Martin's prostrate body on the wet grass and said the gunpowder burns on Martin's gray hoodie were clearly visible."

 

[manifold]

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

How many times have you seen a head that was repeatedly bashed against the concrete?

 

[paperview]

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.

You are wrong.

In 30 plus years of treating wounds of all types, I see wounds on ZMan that could be caused by the head being bashed against concrete. If someone sucker-punched me and commenced to dribble my cranium on the sidewalk, I would put hollowpoints center of mass.

I am anxious to see the postmortum report which hopefully will describe the angle of entry of the bullet and distance of the shooter, etc.

I bet the jury will be interested in that as well.

Absolutely - Getting your nose busted & head bashed on concrete will usually knock you out before it causes a gash.

During the bail hearing the investigator said that the gunshot left powder burns on Martins hoody that were visible to the naked eye at night while they were performing CPR on him. He also said there was stippling on Martin's skin. That means the gun was about 6" away.

Here is the transcript: George Zimmerman Bond Hearing (Transcript) «

Maybe you can show us where he said that.

Search for

gunshot
powder
burns
CPR
visible
naked
hoodie
stippling
skin

NOT FOUND

 

[Ravi]

EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.

Prosecutors have seen that.

Yeah, but this is a picture from an anonymous person that shared it with the media instead of the police! If Martin was banging Zimmerman's head on concrete he sure wasn't trying very hard if that is real evidence.

 

[Peach]

EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.

Prosecutors have seen that.

Yeah, but this is a picture from an anonymous person that shared it with the media instead of the police! If Martin was banging Zimmerman's head on concrete he sure wasn't trying very hard if that is real evidence.

I see one cut, some blood, that is it.