George Zimmerman's bloody head

[KissMy]

"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.

They will never get 12 jurors to convict on that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[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?

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.

Zimmerman was NOT disoriented minutes later, he was able to walk unaided, be interviewed and did not even get checked out at a hospital. It looks as though Zimmerman could not have been in fear of his life actually. How can the defense turn these boo boos into fear of deadly force?

 

[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?

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.

It's open to possibilities. It could have been on the tree, even as he was standing up (and knowing he had to show an injury, quick) - it could have been self-inflicted with his flashlight, (to me, it was curious as to why they brought that flashlight up)-- it could have been found a number of places.

These are just meandering postulations, of course. Until we see exactly what is "not consistent with the evidence we found" regarding the story he gave police.

"The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was" leaves many possibilities, and I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.

 

[dilloduck]

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.



>>>>

Wrong--the person who appeared larger was the person who appeared to walk away from the struggle.

Yes --larger and taller are two different things and consdering how close in size they really were and it was dark with them lying on the ground I wouldn't give a wooden nickle for her testimony. No wonder the didn't call her back.

 

[toomuchtime_]

"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.

They're not. The standard always is would an ordinarily prudent person have believed he was in danger of great bodily harm. In practice, the jurors have to ask themselves if they would have believed that at the time the gun was fired. If you accept Zimmerman's account that Martin knocked him down and was sitting on his chest banging his head against the ground, I think everyone would believe he/she was in danger of suffering great bodily harm at that moment.

 

[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?

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.

Zimmerman was NOT disoriented minutes later, he was able to walk unaided, be interviewed and did not even get checked out at a hospital. It looks as though Zimmerman could not have been in fear of his life actually. How can the defense turn these boo boos into fear of deadly force?

the FEAR of deadly force is not related to the injury sustained. How about if I lift a baseball bat to hit you and you shoot me? You will have no injuries therefore you just murdered me.

 

[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.

They're not. The standard always is would an ordinarily prudent person have believed he was in danger of great bodily harm. In practice, the jurors have to ask themselves if they would have believed that at the time the gun was fired. If you accept Zimmerman's account that Martin knocked him down and was sitting on his chest banging his head against the ground, I think everyone would believe he/she was in danger of suffering great bodily harm at that moment.

Not everyone on this board---your brains have to be splattered all over the ground before you can lift a finger.

 

[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 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.

It's open to possibilities. It could have been on the tree, even as he was standing up (and knowing he had to show an injury, quick) - it could have been self-inflicted with his flashlight, (to me, it was curious as to why they brought that flashlight up)-- it could have been found a number of places.

These are just meandering postulations, of course. Until we see exactly what is "not consistent with the evidence we found" regarding the story he gave police.

"The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was" leaves many possibilities, and I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.

The fact remains he never lost consciousness, was walking minutes later, the police felt no need to get him to a hospital, and he was able to be interviewed for HOURS. The cut on the head might have been him falling after he shot Trayvon Martin. The shooter appears much better right after the killing than a man who had been in fear of his life; in fact he appears calm, and at first, from reports, standing over the body, PROUD. Almost like a hunter who has bagged his prey............................

 

[Ariux]

I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.

How could a wound on the back of the head possibly not be bad for the Prosecution? The Persecution has no hand, except bullshit. Their case will center on trying to confuse the jury to make them think Zimmerman is a liar.

 

[dilloduck]

I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.

How could a wound on the back of the head possibly not be bad for the Prosecution? The Persecution has no hand, except bullshit. Their case will center on trying to confuse the jury to make them think Zimmerman is a liar.

They will probably pull a Fuhrman on him and ask him if he has ever used the word "******".

 

[Peach]

I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.

How could a wound on the back of the head possibly not be bad for the Prosecution? The Persecution has no hand, except bullshit. Their case will center on trying to confuse the jury to make them think Zimmerman is a liar.

No, the prosecution has a shot & killed teenager, and a man who had full mental capacity for a police interview shortly thereafter. The killer might have hit his head on the dropped can of tea. One thing is certain, his injuries were superficial.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

It's open to possibilities. It could have been on the tree, even as he was standing up (and knowing he had to show an injury, quick) - it could have been self-inflicted with his flashlight, (to me, it was curious as to why they brought that flashlight up)-- it could have been found a number of places.

These are just meandering postulations, of course. Until we see exactly what is "not consistent with the evidence we found" regarding the story he gave police.

"The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was" leaves many possibilities, and I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.

The fact remains he never lost consciousness, was walking minutes later, the police felt no need to get him to a hospital, and he was able to be interviewed for HOURS. The cut on the head might have been him falling after he shot Trayvon Martin. The shooter appears much better right after the killing than a man who had been in fear of his life; in fact he appears calm, and at first, from reports, standing over the body, PROUD. Almost like a hunter who has bagged his prey............................

You're out of your fucking mind.

 

[Truthseeker420]

More...http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/219537-new-dershowitz-blasts-zimmerman-prosecuter-becuase-of-photo.html#post5159697

He goes on to say that the Prosecutor may be in hot water.

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.............

It's a weird photo to be sure. No wounds. Just blood. And it wasn't taken by the police.

It must have been Martian's blood.

 

[dilloduck]

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.............

It's a weird photo to be sure. No wounds. Just blood. And it wasn't taken by the police.

It must have been Martian's blood.

nah latest theory is that it was self inflicted.

 

[Peach]

Note also; Zimmerman's testimony in Court also showed a clear memory of events. He stated what he was thinking at the time, not "I CAN'T REMEMBER". I do not see any of the facts helping with self defense, outside of possible grass stains on the back of his jacket, and the unseen blood on his clothes. He looked neat, clean, and not disheveled when going into the station.

 

[dilloduck]

Note also; Zimmerman's testimony in Court also showed a clear memory of events. He stated what he was thinking at the time, not "I CAN'T REMEMBER". I do not see any of the facts helping with self defense, outside of possible grass stains on the back of his jacket, and the unseen blood on his clothes. He looked neat, clean, and not disheveled when going into the station.

Are you pretending there is no head wound at all now ?

 

[Ariux]

They will probably pull a Fuhrman on him and ask him if he has ever used the word "******".

Any "white" person asked that question is automatically condemned ("no" makes you be perceived as a liar and a racist, "yes" makes you doubly racist). I don't know if that'll be done here. We're not dealing the the ilks that OJ had as his lawyers. We're dealing with public servants who just don't want be tarred and feathered by the jewish media and the black mob. It's also possible that the judge would be reasonable and disallow that question, for being nothing but inflammatory.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

They're not. The standard always is would an ordinarily prudent person have believed he was in danger of great bodily harm. In practice, the jurors have to ask themselves if they would have believed that at the time the gun was fired. If you accept Zimmerman's account that Martin knocked him down and was sitting on his chest banging his head against the ground, I think everyone would believe he/she was in danger of suffering great bodily harm at that moment.

Not everyone on this board---your brains have to be splattered all over the ground before you can lift a finger.

You mean they think Zimmerman's brains would have to be all over the ground before he could defend himself, but the jurors will be asked to consider how they would feel if some one were sitting on his/her chest banging banging his/her head on the ground. If they honestly consider how they would have felt under those circumstances, they will have to concede they would believe they were in danger of suffering great bodily harm.

 

[dilloduck]

They're not. The standard always is would an ordinarily prudent person have believed he was in danger of great bodily harm. In practice, the jurors have to ask themselves if they would have believed that at the time the gun was fired. If you accept Zimmerman's account that Martin knocked him down and was sitting on his chest banging his head against the ground, I think everyone would believe he/she was in danger of suffering great bodily harm at that moment.

Not everyone on this board---your brains have to be splattered all over the ground before you can lift a finger.

You mean they think Zimmerman's brains would have to be all over the ground before he could defend himself, but the jurors will be asked to consider how they would feel if some one were sitting on his/her chest banging banging his/her head on the ground. If they honestly consider how they would have felt under those circumstances, they will have to concede they would believe they were in danger of suffering great bodily harm.

We can only hope.

 

[Truthseeker420]

It's a weird photo to be sure. No wounds. Just blood. And it wasn't taken by the police.

It must have been Martin's blood.

nah latest theory is that it was self inflicted.

that still reqiures a wound.