Zimmerman

[JoeB131]

Hey, does anyone know anything about the Gun Shot Residue evidence in this case?

It would seem to follow- logically- that if Zimmerman was struggling with Martin when the gun went off, Martin's body would be covered with GSR.

If they were a few feet apart, it wouldn't. Case closed.

 

[Meathead]

I don't believe in law, I believe in justice. So do most people.

You might think it's a great victory when you get a child-killer off on a technicality, but most sensible people don't.

So you do not have a driver's license, no car insurance, you do not obey red lights and stop signs and obey no law.
You are full of shit as usual.

What did that have to do with anything I said? Of course, I obey the laws.

That isn't the issue here. The issue here is that Zimmerman KILLED A CHILD.

And I know you think you can be slick using terms like "reasonable doubt" and trying to confuse the issue with bullshit like 'He had a bloody nose" or "Trayvon smoked pot once" or some other bullshit, but at the end of the day.

ZIMMERMAN KILLED A CHILD. Shot him in the middle of the street when he was unarmed carrying a bag of skittles. And he almost got away with it because he's white and Daddy is a judge.

If Zimmerman were black and Trayvon were white, there would not be an issue here, and you know it.

THE "CHILD" WAS A THUG and died like one. He could have easily avoided a confrontation (something non-thugs commonly do) and be alive today. That is unless, of course, Zimmerman called the police and then killed him in cold blood. I know there are people here who are bat shit crazy enough to believe that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hey, does anyone know anything about the Gun Shot Residue evidence in this case?

It would seem to follow- logically- that if Zimmerman was struggling with Martin when the gun went off, Martin's body would be covered with GSR.

If they were a few feet apart, it wouldn't. Case closed.

State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor


The Autopsy Report can be read here along with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement forensic reports.


1. Martin GSR: Yes there was GSR on Martin's hoodie indicating close proximity of the end of the muzzle to the hoodie at the time the weapon was discharged. The close proximity discharge resulted in both GSR on the hoodie and a burn pattern consistent with a close discharge. GSR on Martin is indicative of the muzzles position, placing Zimmerman from chest to chest like he described or up to arms length away.

2. Zimmerman GSR: Zimmerman and Martin were supposed to be in close proximity and the gun discharged between their chests, there was no GSR on the front of Zimmerman's jacket chest or sleeves. There was GSR on his hand.

3. DNA: Zimmerman claims Martin punched him over a dozen times in the fact with the first blow to the nose, knocking him ground and resulting in the bloodied face shown in the on scene police photograph from that night. However the autopsy reports external examination of the body made no note of blood on Martins hands and only one small abrasion on the left fourth finger, because the abrasion is noted we know the Medical Examiner examined the hands. DNA examination of material from Martins hands and the cuffs of his hoodie returned negative for the presence of Zimmerman's DNA - which seems like it would have been there if Martin had placed his hands over Zimmerman's bloody nose and mouth as Zimmerman claimed.



>>>>

 

[paperview]

Hey, does anyone know anything about the Gun Shot Residue evidence in this case?

It would seem to follow- logically- that if Zimmerman was struggling with Martin when the gun went off, Martin's body would be covered with GSR.

If they were a few feet apart, it wouldn't. Case closed.

The lawyer Fredrick Leatherman discusses some of it hereL

Was Trayvon Martin Attempting to get Away when George Zimmerman killed Him?


Amy L. Siewert is a Crime Laboratory Analyst employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Laboratory. She examined TM’s Fruit of the Loom dark gray hooded sweatshirt (Exhibit ME 12) and the light gray Nike sweatshirt (Exhibit ME 8) that he was wearing underneath the hoodie when GZ shot and killed him
In her report dated March 22, 2012, she concluded:

The sweatshirts each display a hole located in the upper chest area. The areas around these holes were microscopically examined and chemically processed for the presence of gunshot residues. Both holes displayed residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot.
​

In her bench notes, which the prosecution released in the recent document dump last Thursday, she specifically noted that her microscopic examination of the the light gray sweatshirt (ME 8) “shows results consistent with a contact shot (tearing a hole, sooting around the hole, burning/singeing, no powder pattern, vaporous Pb surrounding the hole). She also noted that the hole exhibited “stellate” tearing. She described the hole in the hooded sweatshirt (ME 12) identically, but noted L-shaped tearing.


These are the classic signs of a contact shot. That is, the muzzle of the gun was in contact with the outer hooded sweatshirt with the light gray sweatshirt immediately behind, or in contact with it.


She also test fired GZ’s gun into squares of cloth cut from both sweatshirts and verified that the muzzle of the gun was in contact with the sweatshirts.
She also noted that the holes in the sweatshirts align with each other.
She also measured the vertical distance from the hole up to to the neck seam at approximately 7 inches. The horizontal distance to the shoulder seam was approximately 7 1/2 inches.


Although these holes align with each other, they do not align with the entry wound in TM’s chest. According to the autopsy report, the entry wound is 1 inch left of the midline and 1/2 inch below the left nipple.


Therefore, the entry wound is approximately 3 1/2 inches below and 2 1/2 inches closer to the midline than the holes in the sweatshirts.
Also significant is that the entry wound was caused by a gunshot in which the muzzle of the gun was at an intermediate range of 2-4 inches.
What does this mean?


I believe it means the sweatshirts were being pulled down or being held by GZ as TM was pulling back or attempting to stand up (and probably screaming for help as he did so) when GZ pressed the muzzle of his gun against the hooded sweatshirt and pulled the trigger. The two sweatshirts were in contact with each other (i.e., gripped together) and approximately 2-4 inches from his chest.


The trajectory of the shot would have been straight through neither varying up or down nor left or right, if TM were leaning forward while attempting to get away, but restrained from escaping by GZ’s grip on his sweatshirts.

Was Trayvon Martin Attempting to get Away when George Zimmerman killed Him? « Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

 

[WorldWatcher]

THE "CHILD" WAS A THUG and died like one. He could have easily avoided a confrontation (something non-thugs commonly do) and be alive today. That is unless, of course, Zimmerman called the police and then killed him in cold blood. I know there are people here who are bat shit crazy enough to believe that.

As a counter-point you note that non-thugs would commonly avoid confrontation. Looking at the events that night Martin attempted TWICE to avoid confrontation once by walking away from the clubhouse area and Zimmerman followed him in the truck, the second time Martin avoid confrontation by running away from the truck in an attempt to break contact. On the other hand Zimmerman promoted confrontation by first following in the truck and then again by exiting the truck and pursuing on foot.

If a non-thug is defined as someone that commonly avoids confrontation then your description applies more to Martin as the non-thug and Zimmerman as the thug.



>>>>

 

[Meathead]

THE "CHILD" WAS A THUG and died like one. He could have easily avoided a confrontation (something non-thugs commonly do) and be alive today. That is unless, of course, Zimmerman called the police and then killed him in cold blood. I know there are people here who are bat shit crazy enough to believe that.

As a counter-point you note that non-thugs would commonly avoid confrontation. Looking at the events that night Martin attempted TWICE to avoid confrontation once by walking away from the clubhouse area and Zimmerman followed him in the truck, the second time Martin avoid confrontation by running away from the truck in an attempt to break contact. On the other hand Zimmerman promoted confrontation by first following in the truck and then again by exiting the truck and pursuing on foot.

If a non-thug is defined as someone that commonly avoids confrontation then your description applies more to Martin as the non-thug and Zimmerman as the thug.



>>>>

I would have to agree to a point, if that was how I defined "thug". At the end, Martin did not avoid confrontation unless you believe that Zimmerman started the assault. That scenario may seem plausible to some, especially those who to whom race pimping is a pastime.

 

[Gadawg73]

I don't believe in law, I believe in justice. So do most people.

You might think it's a great victory when you get a child-killer off on a technicality, but most sensible people don't.

So you do not have a driver's license, no car insurance, you do not obey red lights and stop signs and obey no law.
You are full of shit as usual.

What did that have to do with anything I said? Of course, I obey the laws.

That isn't the issue here. The issue here is that Zimmerman KILLED A CHILD.

And I know you think you can be slick using terms like "reasonable doubt" and trying to confuse the issue with bullshit like 'He had a bloody nose" or "Trayvon smoked pot once" or some other bullshit, but at the end of the day.

ZIMMERMAN KILLED A CHILD. Shot him in the middle of the street when he was unarmed carrying a bag of skittles. And he almost got away with it because he's white and Daddy is a judge.

If Zimmerman were black and Trayvon were white, there would not be an issue here, and you know it.

I figured the issue was you believed in the words you post.
You claimed out of one side of your mouth you do not believe in the law.
And then out of the other side you now claim you do.
"A child is dead" is your sole reason to convict someone without a trial, the good anarchist you are.
Had a recent case where 2 KIDS WERE KILLED in a vehicular homicide case. The field sobriety test had our client who was the defendant at impaired. The entire community was just as ignorant as you and wanted our guy to fry and get the max before trial.
Of course there are folks out there like us that have enough intelligence to go over each and every piece of evidence before trial. Those of us that are not naive and gullible to believe everything the police and prosecution claim.
Months into the investigation we had still not received the chain of evidence for the field test breathalyzer. Once it finally came in we noticed that there was NO time date on it. "Well, that was a mistake, 2 CHILDREN ARE DEAD" was their cry, just like yours, that always appeals to the dumb masses that have no clue about the presumption of innocence and that the prosecution DOES AND HAS hid and sat on key evidence before.
We finally received word that the breathalyzer HAD BEEN USED earlier that day and was the only one the officer could find. Trace results ALWAYS are in the used. Blood tests that were taken, as that is the law also, revealed NO alcohol in the blood. Their claim had been that after numerous cups of coffee it was possible the defendant had flushed out the alcohol. Bogus argument but often used by the State. Result: charges dismissed.
How about that FOR JUSTICE Joe? That sure is a great example of justice.
Getting ready for Joe and his daily "I do not care if you have a 12 inch penis" comment.
Now that would be JUSTICE!

 

[Gadawg73]

THE "CHILD" WAS A THUG and died like one. He could have easily avoided a confrontation (something non-thugs commonly do) and be alive today. That is unless, of course, Zimmerman called the police and then killed him in cold blood. I know there are people here who are bat shit crazy enough to believe that.

As a counter-point you note that non-thugs would commonly avoid confrontation. Looking at the events that night Martin attempted TWICE to avoid confrontation once by walking away from the clubhouse area and Zimmerman followed him in the truck, the second time Martin avoid confrontation by running away from the truck in an attempt to break contact. On the other hand Zimmerman promoted confrontation by first following in the truck and then again by exiting the truck and pursuing on foot.

If a non-thug is defined as someone that commonly avoids confrontation then your description applies more to Martin as the non-thug and Zimmerman as the thug.



>>>>

How do we know what Martin did that night?
How do we know he was running away?
Following in his truck is not confrontation.
If Martin had a right to be there, and he did, so does Zimmerman.
They both did.
Nothing to do with this case. The same thing, and I agree 100% with you, the fact Martin was a thug has nothing to do with what happened that night.

 

[Gadawg73]

Hey, does anyone know anything about the Gun Shot Residue evidence in this case?

It would seem to follow- logically- that if Zimmerman was struggling with Martin when the gun went off, Martin's body would be covered with GSR.

If they were a few feet apart, it wouldn't. Case closed.

State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor


The Autopsy Report can be read here along with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement forensic reports.


1. Martin GSR: Yes there was GSR on Martin's hoodie indicating close proximity of the end of the muzzle to the hoodie at the time the weapon was discharged. The close proximity discharge resulted in both GSR on the hoodie and a burn pattern consistent with a close discharge. GSR on Martin is indicative of the muzzles position, placing Zimmerman from chest to chest like he described or up to arms length away.

2. Zimmerman GSR: Zimmerman and Martin were supposed to be in close proximity and the gun discharged between their chests, there was no GSR on the front of Zimmerman's jacket chest or sleeves. There was GSR on his hand.

3. DNA: Zimmerman claims Martin punched him over a dozen times in the fact with the first blow to the nose, knocking him ground and resulting in the bloodied face shown in the on scene police photograph from that night. However the autopsy reports external examination of the body made no note of blood on Martins hands and only one small abrasion on the left fourth finger, because the abrasion is noted we know the Medical Examiner examined the hands. DNA examination of material from Martins hands and the cuffs of his hoodie returned negative for the presence of Zimmerman's DNA - which seems like it would have been there if Martin had placed his hands over Zimmerman's bloody nose and mouth as Zimmerman claimed.



>>>>

The body is wiped of all bodily fluids before autopsy. Martin was shot with a gun. There was blood all over his body before autopsy from a pistol shot. All wiped clean. Concerning DNA, that means nothing. What is relevant is why didn't the prosecution test Zimmerman THAT NIGHT for Martin's DNA ON HIM? The lack of it on Martin means absolutely nothing as the defendant has no burden to prove anything. However, the prosecution and the police chain of custody should have done that and did not. If the DNA is relevant then why did they ignore Zimmerman.
The likely answer will be that "we believed the version of events that George Zimmerman stated that night" as they let him go.
The police ARE going to stick with that.

 

[Gadawg73]

Trial is set for June 2013.
ON a different note, what about the civil case?
What does bother me is how the Martin family has been given terrible advice from the race pimps but they have a solid claim against the complex there and/or the HOA. And I believe Florida law is the same as here in Georgia that after suit is filed the defendants have to reveal the insurance policy limits and a copy of the insurance DEC sheet to the plaintiffs.
The burden of proof in the civil case is preponderance of the evidence, totally different than beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. The burden is still on the plaintiffs but they only need a hair more proof than in a criminal case where they need 100% proof.
Under that civil scenario, "a child is dead" has a little bit of validity. Negligence is the burden and the HOA/complex WAS negligent and will lose this one. Policy limits of 1 million to the Martin family.
A pittance for the loss of a loved one but clear liability is there I believe.

 

[paperview]

The body is wiped of all bodily fluids before autopsy.

This right here tells me how stupid you are. Bodily fluids are EVIDENCE. Sheesh. The point of the fucking autopsy is to gather evidence.

You'll never convince me you are who you say you are with all the ridiculous comments I see you make.

Martin was shot with a gun. There was blood all over his body before autopsy from a pistol shot

No there wasn't blood all over his body.

Jesuschrist, did you even once look at the discovery dumps?

 

[Gadawg73]

The body is wiped of all bodily fluids before autopsy.

This right here tells me how stupid you are. Bodily fluids are EVIDENCE. Sheesh. The point of the fucking autopsy is to gather evidence.

You'll never convince me you are who you say you are with all the ridiculous comments I see you make.

Martin was shot with a gun. There was blood all over his body before autopsy from a pistol shot

No there wasn't blood all over his body.

Jesuschrist, did you even once look at the discovery dumps?

Never said they were not evidence dumb ass.
Martin was shot through the heart at close range and you claim there was no blood on his body after that.

You pick someone on this board to hold 10K of our $$$ and they can look at the web site for The Georgia Secretary of State's Professional Licensing Department under Private Detectives. You will see my name there licensed in September 1982. I started in 1979 and the law was passed in 1982 requiring me to have a detective license. Full agency license holder since 1985. I wrote the damn private detective agency license test here with 4 other guys in 2004 as Governor Sonny Perdue asked me to.
10K? Put up or shut up.

 

[Gadawg73]

Martin lost so much blood that it leaked into his pocket and was on the Skittles bag.

 

[paperview]

Never said they were not evidence dumb ass.
Martin was shot through the heart at close range and you claim there was no blood on his body after that
...

You see, again, right there. This is not the musings of a logical mind.

I never claimed there was "no blood on his body." You just made that up.

Just like you made up "There was blood all over his body" and in totally characteristic illogical fashion, you went from zero to 100, without even realizing how stupid you look, because, you know, people can read back and see what we post here.

 

[paperview]

For Mr. "Blood All Over"

 

[JoeB131]

So you do not have a driver's license, no car insurance, you do not obey red lights and stop signs and obey no law.
You are full of shit as usual.

What did that have to do with anything I said? Of course, I obey the laws.

That isn't the issue here. The issue here is that Zimmerman KILLED A CHILD.

And I know you think you can be slick using terms like "reasonable doubt" and trying to confuse the issue with bullshit like 'He had a bloody nose" or "Trayvon smoked pot once" or some other bullshit, but at the end of the day.

ZIMMERMAN KILLED A CHILD. Shot him in the middle of the street when he was unarmed carrying a bag of skittles. And he almost got away with it because he's white and Daddy is a judge.

If Zimmerman were black and Trayvon were white, there would not be an issue here, and you know it.

I figured the issue was you believed in the words you post.
You claimed out of one side of your mouth you do not believe in the law.
And then out of the other side you now claim you do.
"A child is dead" is your sole reason to convict someone without a trial, the good anarchist you are.
Had a recent case where 2 KIDS WERE KILLED in a vehicular homicide case. ...Result: charges dismissed.
How about that FOR JUSTICE Joe? That sure is a great example of justice.
Getting ready for Joe and his daily "I do not care if you have a 12 inch penis" comment.
Now that would be JUSTICE!

Well, it is nice when you can buy "justice" from Rent-a-cops, I supposed.

End of the day, those two kids are still dead and your client killed them... so if you can go home and feel good about the fact you got him off on a technicality... have at it.

I hope his check cleared.

 

[JoeB131]

Trial is set for June 2013.
ON a different note, what about the civil case?
What does bother me is how the Martin family has been given terrible advice from the race pimps but they have a solid claim against the complex there and/or the HOA. And I believe Florida law is the same as here in Georgia that after suit is filed the defendants have to reveal the insurance policy limits and a copy of the insurance DEC sheet to the plaintiffs.
The burden of proof in the civil case is preponderance of the evidence, totally different than beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case. The burden is still on the plaintiffs but they only need a hair more proof than in a criminal case where they need 100% proof.
Under that civil scenario, "a child is dead" has a little bit of validity. Negligence is the burden and the HOA/complex WAS negligent and will lose this one. Policy limits of 1 million to the Martin family.
A pittance for the loss of a loved one but clear liability is there I believe.

For some people, it isn't about the money.

I realize this is hard for you to process... I understand this.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, PayPer and WordWatcher... thanks for countering the "reasonable doubt" bullshit with hard evidence.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, PayPer and WordWatcher... thanks for countering the "reasonable doubt" bullshit with hard evidence.

Just to clear, I'm not now or do I believe I've ever tried to "counter" reasonable doubt.

I'm simply showing how the physical and forensic evidence is not consistent with Zimmerman's various recounting of the events that night (namely the audio tapes that night and the video the next day).

A very different thing.



>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, PayPer and WordWatcher... thanks for countering the "reasonable doubt" bullshit with hard evidence.

Just to clear, I'm not now or do I believe I've ever tried to "counter" reasonable doubt.

I'm simply showing how the physical and forensic evidence is not consistent with Zimmerman's various recounting of the events that night (namely the audio tapes that night and the video the next day).

A very different thing.



>>>>

Fair enough.