Regardless of the cause or extent of the injury, basic physics shows he was upright while actively bleeding. If he had been pinned down with Trayvon on top of him as claimed, the blood would not have run down his head like it shows in the picture.

1. This was taken within 2 minutes of the police arriving on scene. At that point, they did not know what was happening, only that there were reports of a gunshot and one man down. Had there been another person with Zimmerman, I'd have to believe that would have been included in the police report narrative. I also can't see the police allowing anyone near Zimmerman and just hangin' around the scene taking photographs immediately after a possible murder.

2. The angle of the photo. George is 5'9" tall, according to the information from his license on the police report. Whoever took this photo had to be damned tall (or George was kneeling) when it was taken. The police report notes that Martin was down on the grass, but does not indicate Zimmerman was down.

3. The blood is dried. The way the blood has run down his head in opposite directions (down and slightly to the left, and sharply to the right) just doesn't ring true. In a struggle such as was described, I'd expect to see more blood and for it to be smeared, not running in rivulets as if it were ... um ... drawn there.

I'd like to compare this photo with stills taken from the video at the police station.

Until officer Smith and EMS swear under oath that's what his head looked like when they arrived, and that a witness truly did take this photo on scene, I won't believe this to be genuine.

Exactly.

The streaks on the right almost look like they were dragged across and down by fingers.

Looks to me more like GZ was bending over forward, look at how the blood from each wound flows in opposite directions. If he's been upright the blood from both wounds would have gone down in more of the same direction wouldn't it? That's providing that this is truly a photo taken at the scene. I think it's very strange that there is a straight line across the upper part of his head as if that part had been covered with something. But isn't that a bit high for a hat line?

***Warning, bloody photo***


And how come this photo is suddenly coming to light after all this time?

It's also a bit high for a wound from having one's head hit on cement. I'd expect it to be lower (like near the point of your arrows), not practically up on the crown.

Looks like Zimmerman may been in a headlock and a metallic object (zipper?) may have caused a small "incision" or two, causing the bleeding.

Was Trayvon wearing a watch? Maybe his fingernail?

The one on the right does look more like a curved laceration (with a bit of a flap) than a split you'd expect to see from blunt force.

I can't recall on what site I viewed it, but there was 'raw' video of Zimmerman on the stand with his so-called apology to the Martin family and then questions from both defense and prosecution. The prosecutor asked several times about inconsistencies in his account, and that he had changed his story more than once. That seems to confirm reports that the lead detective noted inconsistencies in Zimmerman's account of what happened. The defense repeatedly objected to the prosecution's questions; I couldn't hear what the objections were, but I did hear the judge say "sustained".

It is. I wear a hat, and if I wore it that high on the back of my head it would be over my eyes at the front. Also, head wounds bleed like hell.



Thats what I want to know.

Lady Liberty weighs in, and guess whose "side" she's on?



The projection, it burns!

Did the prosecutors have this picture before the hearing? I thought someone who had taken pictures after the shooting had held out for a price from ABC and turned it over to the defense who then offered it to the prosecutors at the hearing. It's all very suspicious.

I keep trying to picture how GZ could have sustained scratches so high up on his head. None of the versions of the story fit.

The only way I think it could have happened is if something was dragged along the skin and the mans head was looking down at the time. An attempted headlock from someone smaller than he was maybe.

I must be missing something here -- but so what? Martin did have the right to try to defend himself didn't he?

I just can't see how any blood on zimmerman changes the story -- a man stalked a walking teenage boy from the safety of his car and at least part of that time was chatting with the police about his activities. He man ups his thrill and finally exits the safety of his car. He confronts then finally shoots and kills the boy. How exactly does zimmerman having any blood on himself change that story?

As far as I understand, martin had every right to "stand his ground" and defend himself against his stalker -- and if that caused some bump and bruises on the violent stalker so be it.

From TPM LiveWire...

Florida Police Chief Resigning In Trayvon Martin Case Fallout: Reports

This registered in my mind as a fact ie that Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Dept directly as opposed to called 911 and I repeated it elsewhere. Somebody has disputed it and unfortunately I can't find any source (other than this post) which suggests that his was not a 911 call......anybody know where definitive confirmation can be found one way or the other? Thanks.

They have released recordings of the calls, which they label " 911 calls." Emergency lines (I believe by law) are recorded, but administrative lines rarely are. Some larger departments may record all incoming calls but Sanford, FL isn't exactly a thriving metropolis so I doubt they do.

From TPM LiveWire

Florida City Rejects Police Chief’s Resignation Over Trayvon Martin Case

If you listen to the tape of his call, it's answered, "Sanford Police Department" . The ones that followed (by people in the complex) were to 911. 911 calls are handled through the call center of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. It was also reported early on that he had called the police department's non-emergency line directly.

^^^^^ If Zimmerman was on top of Martin as a witness states, then perhaps the blood was caused by Martin's fingernails scratching at Zimmerman's head as Martin tried to get Zimmerman off of him.

The coroner mentioned that there was no evidence on Martin's hands that Martin had hit anyone. I wonder if there was blood or skin under his nails.



^^^^^ I doubt Zimmerman's story as well.

I wonder; did Zimmerman scratch his own head or hit his head on the pavement (or another object) to make it look like he was injured by Martin? If he hit his own head against the pavement (or another object), he would be more likely to tilt his jaw upwards in an attempt to hit the "correct" spot. It is unlikely that someone would hit their head against something with the same force that an attacker would use when slamming one's head on the pavement. And if Martin hit Zimmerman's head on the pavement, there should be scrape marks along with the cuts. Zimmerman's scalp would have moved along the pavement as his head was lifted up and down. And wouldn't scrape marks show if Zimmerman was on the bottom? His head would be in contact with the pavement as he struggled.

Or is Zimmerman claiming that his head was only hit against the grass?

Where is Zimmerman's blood on the pavement or grass? If his head was smashed into something, there should be blood on the object.

I'm still curious about blood spatter. Martin was shot at close range. Why wasn't there blood evident on Zimmerman's clothes? The clothes are long gone, but to my knowledge, no blood spatter was noted in the police reports.

Zimmerman's story is completely fabricated. In the 911 call to police by someone near by, we hear Martin screaming for help. That call speaks volumes.

It upsets me that the media is not discussing Mr. Martin's right to "stand his ground," and that he was well within his rights to beat the armed stalker and attacker Zimmerman to death.

This case just keeps my stomach turning. But I have faith that justice will prevail, and that most people are good and that a jury will rule that Zimmerman was neither defending himself nor had any right even to detain Mr. Martin.

I would prefer it not go to trial. I would rather see a plea deal. Jury trials are crap shoots. Casey Anthony was tried in an adjoining country in one of the 'trials of the century' and she lucked out. Zimmmerman will not be 'free' no matter what happens any more than he is 'free' now. He will be even less free than Casey.

Not sure if this question has been answered before, but with the charge of second-degree murder, is it an all-or-nothing thing as far as possible verdicts go?
Is a conviction on a lesser charge, like manslaughter, still possible?

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xm ... -1986-2006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

Louisy v. State, 667 So. 2d 972, 974
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (“Even if the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the state’s
charge, the defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser offense as to which there is any evidence.”
(quoting Kolaric v. State, 616 So. 2d 117, 119 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993))

So does all of this mean they must be instructed on "lesser included crimes" ???

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury ... ctions.pdf


3.4 WHEN THERE ARE LESSER INCLUDED
CRIMES OR ATTEMPTS
Give before reading charges on lesser included crimes or attempts.
In considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that although the evidence may not convince you that the defendant committed the main crime[s] of which [he] [she] is accused, there may be evidence that [he] [she] committed other acts that would constitute a lesser included crime [or crimes]. Therefore, if you decide that the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if the defendant is guilty of any lesser included crime. The lesser crimes indicated in the definition of (crime charged) are:
(List — see chart that follows instruction on the crime charged.)

7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
§ 782.04(2), Fla.Stat.
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act‖ includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.

Lesser Included Offenses

CATEGORY ONE Manslaughter 782.07 7.7

CATEGORY TWO
Third degree (felony) murder
Vehicular homicide
(Nonhomicide lessers)
Attempt
Culpable negligence
Culpable negligence
Felony battery
Aggravated battery
Aggravated assault
Battery
Assault

(page 122)
--

SCHEDULE OF LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES

COMMENT ON SCHEDULE OF LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES

One of the difficult problems in instructing a criminal jury is to make certain that it is properly charged with respect to the degrees or categories of guilt that may be applicable to a given crime. The supreme court in Brown v. State, 206 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1968), described these categories as follows:

1. Crimes divisible into degrees
2. Attempts to commit offenses
3. Offenses necessarily included in the offense charged
4. Offenses which may or may not be included in the offense charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence.

Because it is often so difficult to determine these categories, the committee prepared a list of the offenses applicable to each of the crimes for which standard jury instructions had been drafted. At the same time, the committee recommended treating lesser degrees as category 3 or 4 offenses depending upon the offense and treating attempts as a category 4 offense, thereby eliminating the first two Brown categories as separate categories. In its opinion dated April 16, 1981, in which it approved the new standard jury instructions, the supreme court also approved the schedule of lesser included offenses and accepted the recommendation of the committee to consolidate the four Brown categories into two categories. The supreme court directed that the four categories should be renumbered and designated as follows:
1. Offenses necessarily included in the offense charged, which will include some lesser degrees of offenses.
2. Offenses which may or may not be included in the offense charged, depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence, which will include all attempts and some lesser degrees of offenses.
The court also directed that the appropriate Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure be amended to accommodate these changes. The categories of the offenses which appear on the schedule of lesser included offenses have been renumbered and designated according to the supreme court mandate.
In determining the appropriate lesser offenses for inclusion in the table, the committee followed certain guidelines:
1. No offense is deemed to be a lesser offense if it carries the same penalty as the crime under consideration. See Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla. 1981); State v. Carpenter, 417 So.2d 986 (Fla. 1982).
2. If the definition of the crime includes the attempt or the endeavor to commit the crime, there can be no separate offense of an attempt to commit that crime, e.g., uttering, forgery, grand theft second degree, delivery of controlled substance.
3. Certain crimes do not have attempts, e.g., culpable negligence, extortion, perjury, corruption by threat against public servant, resisting officer with violence, and conspiracy.
4. Except as stated above, attempts to commit crimes generally are included unless the evidence conclusively shows that the charged crime was completed. In such case, attempt should not be instructed.
5. Some statutes provide that the penalty for certain crimes is enhanced if certain events occur during their commission. For example, under F.S. 810.02 burglary is a felony of the first degree if the burglar makes an assault or is armed with explosives or dangerous weapons. If these events do not occur but burglary is committed in a dwelling occupied by human beings, the offense is a felony of the second degree. All other burglaries are felonies of the third degree. Thus, if a defendant is charged with first degree burglary by virtue of having made an assault during the course of the burglary, the jury should be permitted to return a verdict for simple third degree burglary without the enhancement of the assault. In practice, this is similar to the concept of lesser included offenses, but since statutes of this type are couched in terms of enhancement, the schedule does not carry the lower degrees of the offenses proscribed by those statutes as lesser included offenses.
6. Under Knight v. State, 338 So.2d 201 (Fla. 1976), felony murder is included within a single indictment count of premeditated murder. Therefore, first degree felony murder should be given if requested by the state and if supported by the evidence, although it is not a lesser included offense.

table on page 667

Opposing Views April 26, 2012 Racism Taints Fantastic Game 7 Between Washington Capitals and Boston Bruins