Trayvon Martin Family Lawyer Doesn't Rule Out Civil Action Against Zimmerman (Family in Disbelief)

[Igel]

64. Here's a game I like.

If X should have been investigated, what would most likely have been found. Then, How would that have changed the outcome.

If the police had been more pro-active on day 1 ...

Well, they checked TM's body for DNA, injuries, that kind of thing, and bagged the evidence from him. That was easy. He was stationary and most of that kind of evidence would be routinely collected.

GZ ... They might have checked him for DNA. I think I read he didn't have DNA evidence under his nails, but that's sort of a fuzzy recollection that I don't put much stock in. There was no obvious scrape that I've heard of on TM to provide DNA for under the nails, but you never know. Not all DNA is from scraped skin. Still, unless they found a glob of TM's spit on GZ there's probably not much "there" there.

GZ's clothing should have been confiscated, for sure. But we know that his back was wet, allegedly from being in the grass. We can easily suspect that TM got in one punch because of a small wound on his knuckle with GZ's DNA in it. Or he might have scraped it and gotten some of GZ's blood in it. TM was straddling GZ (Good's testimony + ballistics evidence; consider that a fact). So it wouldn't be amiss to expect TM's DNA--perhaps just a hair--to be on GZ. Again, I don't know how the clothing would have helped. Did he have grass stains on his knees? I think we all assume that anyway. Scrapes on the toes of his boots? Sure. Not a problem. If he was on his back and stood up he either had his toes scrape or his knees in the grass or both. Try laying down and then standing up without turning over. It's possible, but very awkward. Easier pushing up your bulk with your hands facing front. Don't know what that would get you. Don't see this making a big difference.

What might have mattered would have been a wound inventory and collection of evidence from GZ's wounds. If his head hit the concrete there might be bits of sand or calcite in the wounds. Probably not. If it was a tree branch, that might have left a bit of tree. There might be some impression to the wound; cement would create a different kind of cut than a tree branch would. Or maybe his head hit the turf--a sprinkler head was in the way, or gravel. If you hit your head on concrete versus have a branch cut across the wound depth and shape would differ. Lots of talk about their length, but I had a friend who had a shin wound no longer than "the scratches" on GZ's head, except that you could see the dent the rock made in the bone if you pulled apart the tissue. Head wounds bleed a lot, so the wounds might have been shallow; but a deep wound would also bleed a lot. Lots of chatter, little use.

The directionality of the 2-3 cuts and the apparent bruise on the back of his head might be helpful to know. It looked like a single impact on a flat surface wouldn't cause all of them, so several impacts would be nececessary. Or is that just because of the angle the picture was taken at?

Same for the nose injury. If there's a punch versus being hit by the handgrip of the gun you'd expect a different pattern to the bruising. Was the nose broken? Cracked? Lots of speculation based on what the wound looked like after about an hour after it happened because it didn't look the way it should a day later. But the time mismatch makes speculation just that.

Were there any other marks on GZ? If you're tackled and hit concrete, you might have abrasions or scratches elsewhere. If punched, kicked, or kneed, perhaps bruises.

What would this have shown at trial? Well, I suspect it would have cleared up a lot of speculation. It might have completely falsified the core of GZ's story--everything's commensurate with GZ tripping and TM straddling him to make sure he's all right. It might have confirmed that GZ's head showed signs of a punch and his hitting the concrete or the ground a few times at the kind of angle that you'd expect if he had been holding his head up during a fight--as opposed to having his head hit against the ground. Or it may show a punch, scrapes that are appropriate to hitting the concrete at a strange angle, followed by something making his head impact concrete and ground numerous times.

Would have been nice. The faith-based claim is that the additional evidence would have completely proven murder--countered with a faith-based claim that the additional evidence would have made anything other than self-defense laughable. Dunno. It's like fantasy football. Nice game, but you don't get upset when the team you actually root for loses when your fantasy team proved, clearly, they should have won.