George Zimmerman's bloody head

[dilloduck]

He/she saw a larger man on top at the time of the shooting. Clearly.

It's like you weren't even listening to the words.

Clearly ? It was dark. At 6:19 the eyewitness said he/she couldn't see clearly enough to testify.

That's not what the witness said.

Let's look at what was said in context of the preceding questions:

• (Start Time ~6:00)
• Reporter (6:00): When you first saw him coming towards you could you see any blood on his face? Was it light enough for you to be able to see any blood on his face if their was any there?
• Witness (6:10): It was not light enough for me to see if there was any blood on the face.
• Reporter: So there could have been, it was just not something you could testify to?
• Witness (6:17): No I could not testify because I could not see
• Reporter (6:20): Did he say anything?
• Witness (6:24): There was a man that came out with a flashlight who was a resident, and ah they possibly were saying something to each other but I could not hear what the words were.
• (End Time ~6:36)

Clearly the answer at 6:17 is to the question about seeing blood on the fact.

>>>>

correct and that was when the man in question was closer to her AND in better light. She could not testify. Is someone going to believe the details of something that occurred further away and in a darker location ?
A defense attorney will chew that to bits.

 

[Ariux]

You have no idea if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty.

You are an ignorant moron. You're ignorant because "you have no idea". You're a moron because you think others are as ignorant as you are.

D = Defense / P = Prosecution

D - Do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that contradicts or conflicts with his (Zimmerman's) contention that he... Turned back to his car

P - No

/

D - Is the evidence inconsistent with Zimmerman saying his head was being hit on the ground?

P - No

(From KissMy's post)

You might have a couple of working brain cells in that ball of shit that you call a brain, use them. The above questions come from a court room. Even the Prosecution concedes that they have no evidence that Zimmerman didn't turn back to his car as he says he did. They concede that the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was bashing his head into the ground. They have zero evidence Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense and Zimmerman has evidence that he did act in self-defense.

 

[bodecea]

Not a lot of blood for head wounds. Really.

 

[Ariux]

Not a lot of blood for head wounds. Really.

Blunt force, not a knife, you f-ing moron.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Clearly ? It was dark. At 6:19 the eyewitness said he/she couldn't see clearly enough to testify.

That's not what the witness said.

Let's look at what was said in context of the preceding questions:

• (Start Time ~6:00)
• Reporter (6:00): When you first saw him coming towards you could you see any blood on his face? Was it light enough for you to be able to see any blood on his face if their was any there?
• Witness (6:10): It was not light enough for me to see if there was any blood on the face.
• Reporter: So there could have been, it was just not something you could testify to?
• Witness (6:17): No I could not testify because I could not see
• Reporter (6:20): Did he say anything?
• Witness (6:24): There was a man that came out with a flashlight who was a resident, and ah they possibly were saying something to each other but I could not hear what the words were.
• (End Time ~6:36)

Clearly the answer at 6:17 is to the question about seeing blood on the fact.

>>>>

correct and that was when the man in question was closer to her AND in better light. She could not testify. Is someone going to believe the details of something that occurred further away and in a darker location ?
A defense attorney will chew that to bits.

Why do you seem to have difficulty with reading what was said.

You said she said it was to dark to testify. That was untrue. She said it was to dark for her to testify that the man had blood on his face (or not), which is completely different then what you presented. She DID NOT say that it was to dark for her to identify that the larger man was on top, that the shot occurred, and that after the shot the larger man rose and the boy remained on the ground.

What a defense attorney or the prosecution does to this are irrelevant at this point. We will see how her questioning proceeds at trial and then it will be the juries responsibility to weigh the validity of her testimony.



>>>>

 

[Truthseeker420]

You have no idea if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty.

You are an ignorant moron. You're ignorant because "you have no idea". You're a moron because you think others are as ignorant as you are.

D = Defense / P = Prosecution

D - Do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that contradicts or conflicts with his (Zimmerman's) contention that he... Turned back to his car

P - No

/

D - Is the evidence inconsistent with Zimmerman saying his head was being hit on the ground?

P - No

(From KissMy's post)

You might have a couple of working brain cells in that ball of shit that you call a brain, use them. The above questions come from a court room. Even the Prosecution concedes that they have no evidence that Zimmerman didn't turn back to his car as he says he did. They concede that the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was bashing his head into the ground. They have zero evidence Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense and Zimmerman has evidence that he did act in self-defense.

First off that didn't prove anything and the link takes you to emptysuit website. again you have no idea if he is innocent or guilty and it will be up to 12 jurors to decide.

 

[Peach]

He's another media hound, just on the other side of the fence. I see blood on the head, perhaps a bruise, no "gashes". Zimmerman da*n sure healed quicker than Martin.............

Other side from who?

You do know that Dershowitz is a well known liberal, right?

And one of the country's top appellate lawyers who has won nearly all his appeals of murder and attempted murder convictions, so when Dershowitz says something is wrong with the prosecutor's actions, a smart prosecutor will pay attention.

He hasn't access to the evidence, he is just running off at the moth. The TWO Judges that have seen it did not express any concerns. THIS is not a charge, that will come soon when the INFORMATION is filed.

 

[KissMy]

First off that didn't prove anything and the link takes you to emptysuit website. again you have no idea if he is innocent or guilty and it will be up to 12 jurors to decide.

Here is the entire George Zimmerman bond hearing VIDEO. See for yourself.

 

[paperview]

D = Defense / P = Prosecution

D - Do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that contradicts or conflicts with his (Zimmerman's) contention that he... Turned back to his car

P - No

/

D - Is the evidence inconsistent with Zimmerman saying his head was being hit on the ground?

P - No

(From KissMy's post)

Let's see...hmmmm.

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after - Mr. Martin?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?

GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?

GILBREATH:Yes.

O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.

O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?

GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?

GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head

O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?

GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."



From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com

ETA: starts at 1:47 (this portion)

 

[Peach]

Who cares what Doucheowitz thinks?

Right. Who cares what a Jew thinks... Doucheowitz's comments reflect his instinct to defend criminals. It's a coincidence that Zimmerman is innocent.

Racist AND anti Semitic, a real treat

 

[dilloduck]

That's not what the witness said.

Let's look at what was said in context of the preceding questions:

• (Start Time ~6:00)
• Reporter (6:00): When you first saw him coming towards you could you see any blood on his face? Was it light enough for you to be able to see any blood on his face if their was any there?
• Witness (6:10): It was not light enough for me to see if there was any blood on the face.
• Reporter: So there could have been, it was just not something you could testify to?
• Witness (6:17): No I could not testify because I could not see
• Reporter (6:20): Did he say anything?
• Witness (6:24): There was a man that came out with a flashlight who was a resident, and ah they possibly were saying something to each other but I could not hear what the words were.
• (End Time ~6:36)

Clearly the answer at 6:17 is to the question about seeing blood on the fact.

>>>>

correct and that was when the man in question was closer to her AND in better light. She could not testify. Is someone going to believe the details of something that occurred further away and in a darker location ?
A defense attorney will chew that to bits.

Why do you seem to have difficulty with reading what was said.

You said she said it was to dark to testify. That was untrue. She said it was to dark for her to testify that the man had blood on his face (or not), which is completely different then what you presented. She DID NOT say that it was to dark for her to identify that the larger man was on top, that the shot occurred, and that after the shot the larger man rose and the boy remained on the ground.

What a defense attorney or the prosecution does to this are irrelevant at this point. We will see how her questioning proceeds at trial and then it will be the juries responsibility to weigh the validity of her testimony.



>>>>

Nor was she cross examined as to how convinced she was who was the larger man in the darkness.
She certainly is nowhere near a witness who can testify beyond a reasonable doubt.
She also saw them lying on the ground---good luck picking the larger man. Even what they were wearing could throw all perceptions of size off.

 

[WorldWatcher]

correct and that was when the man in question was closer to her AND in better light. She could not testify. Is someone going to believe the details of something that occurred further away and in a darker location ?
A defense attorney will chew that to bits.

Why do you seem to have difficulty with reading what was said.

You said she said it was to dark to testify. That was untrue. She said it was to dark for her to testify that the man had blood on his face (or not), which is completely different then what you presented. She DID NOT say that it was to dark for her to identify that the larger man was on top, that the shot occurred, and that after the shot the larger man rose and the boy remained on the ground.

What a defense attorney or the prosecution does to this are irrelevant at this point. We will see how her questioning proceeds at trial and then it will be the juries responsibility to weigh the validity of her testimony.



>>>>

Nor was she cross examined as to how convinced she was who was the larger man in the darkness.

True, we'll have to see how it plays out in court.

She certainly is nowhere near a witness who can testify beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's for the jury to decide.

At this point she is as valid a witness as any of the other neighbors.

She also saw them lying on the ground---good luck picking the larger man. Even what they were wearing could throw all perceptions of size off.

Are you confusing "larger" with "taller"? Those are two different things.

When two people are on the ground it's pretty difficult to determine the "taller". On the other hand determining that one is "skinny" and one "stocky" and assigning the mental tag of "larger" to the stocky person pretty easy.

The fact remains that the "larger man" was the one on top when the gun was discharged and that is the person that got up from the struggle.



>>>>

 

[KissMy]

D = Defense / P = Prosecution

D - Do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that contradicts or conflicts with his (Zimmerman's) contention that he... Turned back to his car

P - No

/

D - Is the evidence inconsistent with Zimmerman saying his head was being hit on the ground?

P - No

(From KissMy's post)

Let's see...hmmmm.

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after - Mr. Martin?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?

GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?

GILBREATH:Yes.

O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.

O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?

GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?

GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head

O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?

GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."



From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com

ETA: starts at 1:47 (this portion)

Continuing the exchange:

GILBREATH: Managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found.

O’MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don’t they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O’MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O’MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn’t consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.

 

[dilloduck]

D = Defense / P = Prosecution

D - Do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that contradicts or conflicts with his (Zimmerman's) contention that he... Turned back to his car

P - No

/

D - Is the evidence inconsistent with Zimmerman saying his head was being hit on the ground?

P - No

(From KissMy's post)

Let's see...hmmmm.

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after - Mr. Martin?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?

GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?

GILBREATH:Yes.

O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.

O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?

GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?

GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head

O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?

GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."



From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com

ETA: starts at 1:47 (this portion)

Continuing the exchange:

GILBREATH: Managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found.

O’MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don’t they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O’MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O’MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn’t consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.

If they plan on trying to impeach Zimmerman over what exactly cut his head open, they don't have much. Coulda been a rock on the grass.

 

[paperview]

What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.

That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?

 

[Peach]

"That is not consistent with the evidence we found."

That leaves it wide open. No immediate medical exam, healed now. Might be tough to find any fear of deadly injury in this scenario. Ambulatory, had the capacity to be interviewed that night, and sought only a doctor's care the next day; nothing SO FAR, to indicate he was even given SOP for a concussion. He walked, talked to police, then was interviewed AGAIN, for a total of HOURS before medical care. Those injuries healed quick, and a jury seeing a fear of deadly force will take a lot of explaining.

 

[dilloduck]

What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.

That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?

I can't tell---apparently the big inconsistency in the story is exactly where his head was hurt. On grass or concrete. I think it would be more important to know who did it, when they did it and how.
If someone was hitting my skull on the ground and I was struggling to avoid it, I would be hard pressed to tell you exactly where the blood started to flow.

 

[KissMy]

What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.

That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?

How would the location of GZ head striking the ground be "pretty important" for the prosecution?

If GZ head was pounded on the grass, it means that TM was slamming his head with even greater force to cause the marks in the photo. This will help the defense IMHO. It will also show just how disoriented GZ was due to his head being pounded.

 

[dilloduck]

"That is not consistent with the evidence we found."

That leaves it wide open. No immediate medical exam, healed now. Might be tough to find any fear of deadly injury in this scenario. Ambulatory, had the capacity to be interviewed that night, and sought only a doctor's care the next day; nothing SO FAR, to indicate he was even given SOP for a concussion. He walked, talked to police, then was interviewed AGAIN, for a total of HOURS before medical care. Those injuries healed quick, and a jury seeing a fear of deadly force will take a lot of explaining.

Toughest part of the case. How in the hell is someone supposed to get into someone elses head and determine if they feared for their lives BEFORE they took action.

 

[Peach]

What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.

That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?

I see inconsistency with fear of deadly force from the events following the killing; the police found he had the capacity to be interviewed, he could walk, and was not LED to a doctor the next day. No report the police feared a concussion; Zimmerman seemed to have some cuts on his head, none of which had any impact on his mental capacity.