HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Zimmerman Trial - Why do ...

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:41 AM

Zimmerman Trial - Why do cops/analysts not know what actually happened?

Why does forensic information NOT explain where both GZ and TM were when Z pulled the trigger? Between blood spatter analysis, the trajectory of the bullet, gunshot residue, etc., one would think law enforcement would have at least a pretty decent idea of what actually happened, who was on top, how far away the gun was when fired, etc. Or has this been covered and I just missed it?

Before anyone accuses me of watching too much tv, I don't watch any crime scene dramas. None. Nada. Zilch. I read a lot and I've seen a few movies that touch on crime scene analysis, but I never watch any tv shows about the subject. From what I've heard, those shows are bullshit and not much based on reality.

So what gives? From what I have read about the subject, the detectives, the coroner and the crime scene analysts can usually come up with at least a good working theory about what happened. Why is there no conclusive idea from law enforcement about how it went down?

Did the cops do a shitty job of the investigation? White guy kills black teenager . . . case closed?

66 replies, 5955 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 66 replies Author Time Post
Reply Zimmerman Trial - Why do cops/analysts not know what actually happened? (Original post)
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 OP
BlueStreak Jun 2013 #1
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #4
BlueStreak Jun 2013 #21
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #26
graham4anything Jun 2013 #2
yardwork Jun 2013 #32
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #3
TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #10
JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #14
Siwsan Jun 2013 #5
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #6
Marrah_G Jun 2013 #30
hfojvt Jun 2013 #42
Siwsan Jun 2013 #43
hfojvt Jul 2013 #47
Siwsan Jul 2013 #49
hfojvt Jul 2013 #51
redwitch Jul 2013 #57
Siwsan Jul 2013 #62
malaise Jul 2013 #48
nsd Jun 2013 #7
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #8
dkf Jun 2013 #27
Mojo Electro Jun 2013 #35
Jenoch Jul 2013 #54
Travis_0004 Jul 2013 #61
Jenoch Jul 2013 #63
Travis_0004 Jul 2013 #64
Mojo Electro Jul 2013 #66
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #55
Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #9
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #12
Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #15
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #29
pnwmom Jun 2013 #19
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #28
dkf Jun 2013 #31
pnwmom Jun 2013 #36
pnwmom Jun 2013 #11
TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #22
pnwmom Jun 2013 #24
TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #37
lunatica Jun 2013 #13
mzteris Jun 2013 #16
TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #23
Skittles Jul 2013 #52
Sheepshank Jun 2013 #17
pintobean Jun 2013 #18
Lurks Often Jun 2013 #20
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #25
alc Jun 2013 #33
pnwmom Jun 2013 #38
lunatica Jun 2013 #41
fleur-de-lisa Jun 2013 #34
TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #39
Adsos Letter Jun 2013 #44
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #40
flvegan Jun 2013 #45
Vattel Jun 2013 #46
WinkyDink Jul 2013 #50
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jul 2013 #53
graham4anything Jul 2013 #59
orpupilofnature57 Jul 2013 #56
Saturday Jul 2013 #58
hugo_from_TN Jul 2013 #60
WinkyDink Jul 2013 #65

Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:49 AM

1. Because the real world has very little to do with your favorite teevee crime show, maybe?

If those Sanford Bozos would have simply called the Paul Drake Detective Agency, this would have been solved long ago. Paul Drake and Perry Mason can solve any crime in 60 minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:55 AM

4. Well, you obviously can't read . . .

but that didn't stop you from making a snarky comment.

Quote from my OP:

"Before anyone accuses me of watching too much tv, I don't watch any crime scene dramas. None. Nada. Zilch. I read a lot and I've seen a few movies that touch on crime scene analysis, but I never watch any tv shows about the subject. From what I've heard, those shows are bullshit and not much based on reality."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:26 PM

21. Then why are you asking the question? You already know the answer.

The "science" of crime investigation is not infinite or infallible. They can't even determine conclusively whose voice was on the recording.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:22 PM

26. Do you even read an entire post before you reply?

Apparently not. I have received some insightful and interesting comments from other DU members regarding this post. You seem to be looking for a fight. Well, look elsewhere. I'm done with you. BLOCKED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:49 AM

2. Because in Sanford, one can probably say no one was there to protect Trayvon Martin.

 

and the blue wall of silence that cops in NYC call it.

Cops stick together.

And in Sanford, probably they arrived, zimmy was a pseudo-cop, in effect and they just believed him

Trayvon Martin had zero rights.

That's why, when people complain about some oblique right taken away, some seem to forget, in America, in its entire history
many have zero rights from the start, or wake up every day with less REAL rights than others

Add to that the 2nd amendment which so badly was reinterpreted a few years back

and its the perfect murder.

Because no one was there to protect Trayvon Martin in Sanford Florida

So, to use your last line, no itwasn't a "shitty job" of investigation, it was no investigation

Much like when Jim Baker had said there was a count a recount, and another recount
which of course, was a lie. There never was a count to start off with

Florida, it is always Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:30 PM

32. Interestingly, the first LEO on the scene did not believe Zimmerman.

The transcripts of that night's interrogation of Zimmerman indicate quite a bit of skepticism on the board of the police officers about his story. It was the district attorney, later that night, who told them not to press charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:52 AM

3. I have an idea

BTW - I'm not a CSI watcher either - although I enjoy The Killing, The Following and Copper (set in NYC during the Civil War).

That said - in reading this week - it turns out that the tests you can do to see if blood was present on a surface was never done on the sidewalk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:21 AM

10. was doing those tests possible?

I know about luminal, but would that work on a sidewalk that was wet? And doesn't luminal show not only blood but urine, feces, semen, etc.? I would think that luminal would make the entire sidewalk glow considering this was a dog walking area.

What tests could have been done on a wet sidewalk? I ask because it appears that you've looked into this.

One thing I think was shoddy was the officer that took Zimmerman's gun not using gloves or putting the gun in plastic to preserve evidence. He (I believe with was Tim Smith that testified on Day 5) claimed that he did none of this because of lack of time. But with all the other officers there I can't figure why time was an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:46 AM

14. I haven't looked into it

It appeared on one of the stand your ground threads. And thanks for the "name" of the product. But - I guess it works on "washed" surfaces. So someone could murder someone in their home, wash up the blood and gore - and blood would still show. Not even bleach can mask it. So - why didn't they at least "try" where Zimmerman says he his head smashed in?

It's all very Keystone Cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:00 AM

5. My take: By the time they paid attention to public outcry, evidence was gone

I think they pretty much immediately wrote it all off as self defense because they were 'acquainted' with Zimmerman and they just took his version as fact.

I see a case where a paranoid guy chased a perfectly innocent young man down, after being told by the police not to, instigated a confrontation, lost control in a panic and fired a gun. I don't know if it is 2nd degree murder, but I sure as hell think it is aggravated manslaughter. The credibility of his self defense claim flew out the window, the instant Zimmerman ignored what he was told, got out of his car and headed in Trayvon's direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:03 AM

6. Well said . . . that's pretty much what I think too. - eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:28 PM

30. This could very well be the case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 05:41 PM

42. Apparently somebody lied to you

because what you wrote is NOT true

"The credibility of his self defense claim flew out the window, the instant Zimmerman ignored what he was told, got out of his car and headed in Trayvon's direction."

Clearly I need to put this in my journal because many people seem to think that is what happened. It's not.

What happened is this

Zimmerman calls the police (and it is on tape and the recording is on the web)

Zimmerman (paraphrased) Now he is walking toward me. He's checking me out.

more talking. Then you can hear Zimmerman open his car door and start breathing hard as he is obviously walking after Trayvon. As Zimmerman talks to dispatch. The dispatcher picks up on the heavy breathing and asks

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: yeah

Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman: okay.

n.b. This is just what Zimmerman said. I am not claiming that this proves Zimmerman actually stopped following Trayvon or trying to figure out which way he went.

and as for Zimmerman "instigating" a confrontation. Something else is also a FACT.

Zimmerman on the tape says "shit, he's running" and then talks to dispatch for another minute during which he also says "I don't know where he is". So I still don't see how Zimmerman could catch Trayvon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:13 PM

43. Nobody lied to me - I clearly prefaced it was my take on the case

And nothing in your 'transcript' changes my take. But thanks for posting it, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:06 PM

47. your take on the case, included something untrue

"Zimmerman ignored what he was told, got out of his car"

Zimmerman was ALREADY OUT of his car, when he was told "we don't need you (to follow Trayvon)"


So you apparently heard somebody else saying that wrong.

You are free to have your own take on the case, just like everybody else, but nobody is free to have their own facts.

The narrative of

1. Zimmerman was told not to follow him
2. Zimmerman got out of his car anyway

is simply NOT TRUE.

And many people seem to believe that false narrative.

Now I know that people are stubborn and they hate being wrong, or admitting that they are wrong. Heck, I could have one of those joke posters on my own wall "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts". But it is possible that your take could change as you get more facts or get errors corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #47)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:17 PM

49. You are tenacious. I'll give you that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #49)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:19 PM

51. you mean I've got spunk? Thank you, Mr. Grant

and then Lou says "I hate spunk"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #51)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:32 PM

57. Lou Grant reference!

You made me smile, thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #51)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 07:02 PM

62. Ah, memories

You've made me smile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #5)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:08 PM

48. +1,000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:04 AM

7. Wasn't it raining that night?

The rain might have washed away some of the physical evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nsd (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:09 AM

8. True, but . . .

the trajectory of the bullet through Trayvon's body, which would indicate where and how the gun was held, wouldn't be affected by rain. And if the gun was held close to TM's body when fired, the heat would leave burn marks on his clothing and skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:24 PM

27. And wouldn't there be blood dripping downwards if he shot from below?

 

Shouldn't we be able to prove if the gun was shot from below or above?

I do not understand why the forensics aren't more prominent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:21 PM

35. I agree...

I don't get why we aren't hearing more about the physical evidence, there must be a few things we can learn. Do we even know where the round ended up? The position of the ejected shell casing also has the potential to help determine whether the gun was fired upwards or downwards. Distance of the muzzle to the body? All that can be determined with some accuracy. Blood splatter would have to be present to at least some degree. Why aren't we hearing more about any of this? Could it be that the incident was not properly documented?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojo Electro (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:29 PM

54. The position of the shell casing would not reveal anything about

how the gun was fired. The placement of the shell casing could tell where the gun was fired from, but that would not take into account the casing being deflected. A semi-auto handgun could be fired a hundred times from the exact same spot and the casings could hit the ground in a hundred different spots with the primer facing differing directions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #54)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 06:26 PM

61. I think it might actually tell a bit.

Shells on 99% of all guns will eject to the right, and since the cops have Zimmerman gun, they would know it was a model with right hand ejection.

If Zimmerman was on the bottom, his gun was pointing up, and it will eject to the right. If Zimmerman was on top, it would still eject to the right, but the direction would be on the other side, since the gun is now facing down.

If you could prove where trayvon was shot (which may be difficult due to the rain), then you could at least make an educated guess which way Zimmerman was when he fired the shot. If they brass is close to the body, then you could argue it could have been deflected, and its less conclusive. If it ended up quite far from the body then the odds of deflection decrees.

I have a lot of experience shooting, and I find with a particular round, the deflection is quite consistent. I have an AR-15, and on 5.56 rounds, the brass ends up forward of the gun, at about 2oclock. With .223 round, the brass ends up at about 4 oclock, but its very consistent, so much that if you loaded 1/2 223, and half 5.56, I could tell which is which based on where the brass ends up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #61)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 08:24 PM

63. I was responding to post where

it was claimed that the POSITION, not the location/distance of the shell casing could provide clues. I don't think how the shell is laying on the ground, meaning which way the spent primer is pointing will tell anything of value. Those things tumble and how it is lying on the ground is meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #63)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 08:31 PM

64. Ok, makes sense.

I agree with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #63)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 08:51 PM

66. You are right...

I did mean "location" and probably should have typed it that way....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojo Electro (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:31 PM

55. COLLUSION!! This was a cover-up, plain and simple! A cover-up!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:15 AM

9. Your language about this is all over the place and suggests a need to define words.

You ask 'why don't they know'. Later you pose that they usually have a 'working theory'. The two things are extremely different, to know and to have a theory. You follow 'why no theory' with 'why no conclusive idea'.
Not sure what you expect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #9)


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:48 AM

15. Why get all snarky and personal? And don't tell me what to do for questioning

you contradictory word choices. It is very important to understand the difference between knowledge and theory. To confuse the two as you do, is the first step to wingnuttery.
You insulted me instead of answering very good questions, because is suits your agenda to be vague, to lack precision, to say both Yes and No about the same questions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:28 PM

29. The nap didn't help?

Are you Bluestreak's sock, or is it the other way around? Doesn't matter . . . BLOCKED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:23 AM

19. The police didn't cover the crime scene to protect against the rain.

They apparently bought Zimmerman's claim of self-defense . They were letting him wander around the station not in handcuffs, and didn't trust him for drugs and alcohol (they did test Martin). They let him go after a few hours without arresting him. They only re-opened the case because of the public outcry.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The vehicle that Mr. Zimmerman was driving when he first spotted Mr. Martin was mistakenly not secured by officers as part of the crime scene. The vehicle was an important link in the fatal encounter because it was where Mr. Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious teenager in a hooded sweatshirt roaming through the Retreat. Mr. Zimmerman also said he was walking back to the vehicle when he was confronted by Mr. Martin, who was unarmed, before shooting him.
The police were not able to cover the crime scene to shield evidence from the rain, and any blood from cuts that Mr. Zimmerman suffered when he said Mr. Martin pounded his head into a sidewalk may have been washed away.
The police did not test Mr. Zimmerman for alcohol or drug use that night, and one witness said the lead investigator quickly jumped to a conclusion that it was Mr. Zimmerman, and not Mr. Martin, who cried for help during the struggle.

http://wunc.org/post/george-zimmermans-murder-trial-begins-florida


In his opening statement, Donald West, one of the lawyers representing George Zimmerman, dismissed the fact there was no blood or DNA on Trayvon Martin's hands, blaming crime scene technicians for not taking steps to preserve that evidence.

http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/1f6e0293-aa53-4d15-9407-5a476da89aba

Law enforcement experts said that Sanford police made key errors early in the investigation and made crucial decisions before important evidence was gathered. Martin's cell phone records were not immediately checked. Investigators did not talk with key witnesses for more than a week.

While police conducted a criminal background check on Martin, as well as drug and alcohol tests, Zimmerman was not subject the same tests. It was learned later that Zimmerman was arrested in 2005 for assaulting a police officer and has had a history of aggression and violence, including domestic violence.

During her news conference announcing the charges, Corey took an apparent swipe at Sanford police officials, who leaked confidential information about the case that appeare


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:26 PM

28. Great information. Thanks pnwmom. - eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:30 PM

31. Is the problem that they did no ballistic studies soon enough to determine trajectory?

 

I would not think they needed all the evidence in the area, but could do something with Martin's body and his clothes and Zimmerman's clothes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #31)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:25 PM

36. Instead of arresting him, they sent Zimmerman home, presumably wearing his clothes,

a few hours after they took him in.

And they didn't keep the crime scene secured.

I think they were just going through the motions of an investigation because they made up their minds almost immediately that he had a good case for self-defense -- either that, or he was considered one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:22 AM

11. As I recall, the cops didn't initially treat this as a murder.

They accepted his claim that it was self defense. I think I read that they didn't do a good job preserving the scene, because of that.

And there was the rain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:52 PM

22. that's how I remember it, too

I definitely remember some expert on tv aghast that they didn't treat it as a homicide at all - self-defense or not the fact that someone was shot to death makes it a homicide scene. they didn't rope off the area and let anyone wander through it, they didn't keep the area guarded to make sure no evidence that might have been missed in the dark was added or taken away, they did nothing to protect the area from the rain, etc. I also definitely remember some expert going through the video from two different angles of Zimmerman being taken into the police station and noting all sorts of basic mistakes especially when one officer checked Zimmerman's pockets without wearing gloves.

The whole thing was shoddy. Instead of questioning each witness and having them go to the police station for an official statement all they did was hand out sheets for witnesses to fill out and turn in if they WANTED to. What the hell kind of witness questioning is THAT? There was also that one lady that repeatedly called the detective to give her statement and he never got back to her. I think that was the roommate of the woman that testified in Spanish though I can't recall her name.

Yeah, I think it was evident that they just accepted his claim of self-defense and washed their hands of it until the public outcry. I don't think it has anything to do with knowing Zimmerman or his father having been a magistrate in other state either. I think that the previous call from Zimmerman to 911 about a suspicious person followed minutes thereafter of the shots fired dispatch went a long way in having them decide that Martin WAS suspicious and therefore Zimmerman DID kill him in self-defense. And yes, I think race had everything to do with it. Had the races been reversed I absolutely believe that they would have been all over it and that Martin wouldn't have left the station that night.

Weren't they also very slow about notifying his family as well even though they found out who Martin was that night and could easily have found out who his friends and family were through his cellphone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:02 PM

24. I agree with most of that, but I think they did know Zimmerman,

and that probably affected their attitude toward him -- and was why they let him wander around the police station without handcuffs.

He had been on several ride-alongs with the police, telling them he wanted to pursue a police career. So some of them, at least, did know him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:26 PM

37. Ah, yes, that's true

He also coordinated with them for the neighborhood watch stuff. Though only a few might have known him personally some of them would have at least known of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:25 AM

13. The reason is because the cops didn't think this was murder

They released Zimmerman and it wasn't until a month later when this story exploded onto the world press that things started happening. He would be a free man today if the story hadn't gotten out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:03 AM

16. they didn't this of is AS murder -

I think that distinction needs to be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:55 PM

23. they didn't even treat it as a homicide never mind a murder n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:21 PM

52. sick, sick, sick

he should have been CHARGED immediately

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:11 AM

17. In part because the only live person involved has already lied

It is difficult to judge whn the reality, vs. the story is being presented.....and his testimony is in conflict with evidence. It's that conflict between testimony and evidence that is causing the possible problem for jurors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:15 AM

18. The prosecution hasn't finished presenting their case.

They're yet to call any witnesses who can testify to any of those things. I would hope, and guess, that that is where their best evidence is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:31 AM

20. The forensic information regarding the bullet's trajectory

has not been addressed in court yet. Relevant information from the police and ME report start about page 120: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf

If, again IF, I am reading the report correctly, the pistol was in contact with the sweatshirt, but not in direct contact with the skin. The ME classifies it as an "intermediate range" wound, which is defined here: http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distanceresults.htm (note, some may consider the photos as graphic)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:18 PM

25. Thank you L.O. Great information. - eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:35 PM

33. they obviously haven't been reading DU

a number of posters here must have been eye witnesses (and mindreaders) to provide the explanations they have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alc (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:27 PM

38. A number of posters hear read a number of posts at the time of the death.

They're not mind readers. They're print readers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alc (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 05:13 PM

41. And some obvisouly haven't read anything at all about this case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:36 PM

34. Very detailed information from law enforcement and the medical examiners office . . .

Post #20 from 'Lurks Often' provides very detailed information from law enforcement and the medical examiners office. This is in the first link in 'Lurks Often's post. This information answered all of my questions.

It's a complicated case with varying witness accounts as to who was screaming and who was on top during the deadly scuffle. And, as several of you mentioned, the prosecution hasn't presented its case yet.

But if Zimmerman had listened to the dispatcher when advised not to pursue the "suspicious" person, none of this would have happened. Truly sad!

Thanks for the great information, Lurks Often!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:28 PM

39. yeah, it is good info

Slogging my way through it right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:54 PM

44. "But if Zimmerman had listened to the dispatcher...

...when advised not to pursue the "suspicious" person, none of this would have happened."

I think the record indicates that the cops would have agreed with you. This is a portion of the transcript of an interview with Sanford PD:

Serino: OK, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we donít need you to do that, what went through your mind?

Zimmerman: Heís right.

Serino: So you shoulda stopped and went back to your vehicle.

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 02:33 PM

40. Several explanations, reasons if you will.

1.- The scene was not preserved or processed in a careful manner. Scenes that are take hours to do so. Why that did not happen may come down to not having the proper training, or even sloppy police work

2.- it was raining. So that alone degrades scenes this fast.

3.- csi units and their capabilities vary greatly around the country.

4.- A lot of what is known is from the scene recreation done 24 hours later iirc.

No, I don't watch police dramas either, but have witnessed local cops process both nasty accident scenes and crime scenes. Paint drying s that much more exciting. The night of the killing theu were done in two hours...serious, really?

As a medic I also taught my medics some evidence preservation after consulting with crime investigators back in the day. One that is obvious when you think about it, but regularly ignored, is cutting through clothing where an entry, exit hole is. I taught my medics not just to cut around it, but if possible cut at least 20 cm from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:57 PM

45. Because DU's armchair attorney-jurists haven't told them yet.

From what so many here say, you'd think many of them were there that night. With a court reporter. And Jesus Christ Himself as their witness to the events as they unfolded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 30, 2013, 11:23 PM

46. +1,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #45)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:19 PM

50. While others have had lobotomies and hold no opinions WHATSOEVER!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:28 PM

53. What I think? It's COLLUSION!! Cops were negligent. They didn't care about a black boy losing

his life, so I think they helped Zimmerman concoct this crazy story. Really, I do.

You can hear on the tape while Zimmerman's being interrogated, the detective telling Zimmerman: "That's you! That's you screaming for help!"

Zimmerman: "That doesn't even sounds like me"

Detective: That's you!!

They helped Zimmerman cover up his murder!! They are scum! All of them!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #53)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:46 PM

59. sounds like in NYC they have the blue wall of silence, and 96 hours to concoct in unison a story

 

I can fully see your scenario as what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:31 PM

56. They'd have to admit they were ineffectual even after

they told him to " stop pursuing " . I imagine the people responsible, let him ( Zimmerman ) think he had backing as far as authority .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fleur-de-lisa (Original post)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 05:39 PM

58. A major major major fact...

that seems to have been swept under the rug is that Trayvon had NONE of Zimmerman's DNA on his cuffs, fingers or under his fingernails. He couldn't have been sitting on Zimmerman hitting him as Zimmerman claims. Why doesn't the state bring this up at every turn? NO Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon. Zimmerman is lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saturday (Reply #58)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 06:24 PM

60. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Saturday (Reply #58)

Mon Jul 1, 2013, 09:06 PM

65. I'm supposing a DNA expert will be called.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread