Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

That applies to George, too. I give more credence to what he immediately said. See how easy that was for me? I don't seem to see the people who immediately judged George to be a racist, cold-blooded murderer giving even an inch when new information comes to light.

For example, so far, no documentation that any swabs were even done on TM's hands. Also, the body laying for 2 hours before the ME arrived, in the rain. No documentation seen that his hands were bagged......has any of that altered your views about TM not having any blood on his hands?

Thank you. If they swabbed his fingernails but neglected to swab his hands, then yes, that would mitigate the importance of not finding blood there. In fact, if they neglected to take those swabs at all I'd be very pissed at LE.

If they swabbed, but didn't bag them, I'd have to hear more about how that would affect the DNA results.

If they found Trayvon's DNA but not George's, I'd consider that evidence that none of George's blood got on his hands. So far, that looks to be the case but we may be wrong.

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

You're completely misunderstanding me still.

I asked a question and you answered.

You answered that you believe it is possible (or more specifically "fathomable") that blood on Ms hands could have gone unnoticed.

I gave my opinion, which is I seriously doubt it.

ETA: Since you are here and discussing things, have you watched the video from post #484?

I'm wondering why no one else has mentioned it....

 

[Dcdrac]

Not to me.

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/Z-nose.jpg[/qimg]

I would expect to see Black Eyes and more bruisng personally if the beating really occured in the manner described by GZ

 

[Dcdrac]

How can the blood from a different person be unnotieced ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're completely misunderstanding me still.

I asked a question and you answered.

You answered that you believe it is possible (or more specifically "fathomable") that blood on Ms hands could have gone unnoticed.

I gave my opinion, which is I seriously doubt it.

Yes, and in return, I asked some questions about why you find it unbelievable.

Who documented the condition of hands ? Anyone ?

Is your contention that since no one noted 'bloody hands' in in some kind of report, that is proof there was no blood on the hands ?

ETA: Since you are here and discussing things, have you watched the video from post #484?

I'm wondering why no one else has mentioned it....

No, I have not watched it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How can the blood from a different person be unnotieced ?

Do GZ and TM have different colored blood so that you would notice if one had someone else blood on him ?

 

[Unabogie]

I should have said from the keys to the body is about 35 feet.

Assuming the fight begins about where the keys were found.

Of course, as I have said before, it's entirely possible that the keys went flying, and don't really indicate anything about where the first punch was thrown.

I really don't think GZ has a problem with the distance from the T to the body.

The distance from the sidewalk to the first house is at least 10'. Probably 15', but I said 10' just for the sake of argument. The lots are at least 30'. For George to be seen in the middle of the second backyard is ~55'.

For a guy whose original story said he got hit at the T and went right down to the ground, this is a glaring contradiction. The fact that he later changed his story to explain why he was so far down the pathway really hurts his already shaky credibility.

I'm not sure why that's not obvious to everyone.

That's why in the bond hearing they referenced the position of the body.

It doesn't match what he originally claimed.

Remember, Serino's theory is not that George set out to kill anyone that night. Just that once he did, he lied to make himself sound innocent.

He innocently called NEN
He only followed becuse NEN asked him to.
He immediately stopped following when asked.
He was only looking for an address or street sign.
He never verbally confronted Trayvon.
He went down immediately when hit, and then sat there being beaten.
Trayvon went for his gun and told him "you gonna die tonight, ************".
He shot in total self defense.

The police are just pointing out how this doesn't match the known facts. One of those facts is that if George was walking back to his truck and was attacked there, it wouldn't explain how they got all the way down to the second home's backyard, which as I'm trying to demonstrate is ~55' away from where he said originally he got hit once and fell down.

The fact that he later changed his story to try and explain this away doesn't help him. I contend it hurts him greatly, which is why the police focused on it as well.

 

[Rare Truth]

The science of DNA forensic identification in crime scenes. It's a wonder to behold!


Little microscopic human cells - and oh the tales they tell.

 

[This is The End]

Yes, and in return, I asked some questions about why you find it unbelievable.

Who documented the condition of hands ? Anyone ?

Is your contention that since no one noted 'bloody hands' in in some kind of report, that is proof there was no blood on the hands ?

In my opinion it goes without saying that the shooter's blood not being noticed on a murder victim's hands is theoretically impossible.

It would be noted by someone. If not, it would be one of the most unbelievable errors imaginable.

No, I have not watched it.

You mean you have not watched it yet?

 

[Unabogie]

Do GZ and TM have different colored blood so that you would notice if one had someone else blood on him ?

Well we know they examined his hands, since they noted on the autopsy report the tiny abrasion of the left ring finger. We know they scraped under his fingernails in order to find trace amounts of DNA. Does it really seem like they didn't swab any other blood they found? Wouldn't that strike you as really odd?

 

[Rare Truth]

...
The fact that he later changed his story to try and explain this away doesn't help him. I contend it hurts him greatly, which is why the police focused on it as well.

I've seen it measures with google-maps tools at being around 40 feet.

It certainly is a good distance from the area GZ describes in his initial statements.

 

[Dan O.]

So it all hinges on GZ's claim that TM went for his gun?

The standard is already discussed in this thread, a 'reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death'.

Certainly if that claim is presented and then the jury agrees with it, that would help meet some of the qualifiers for self defense. It is not a requirement, IMO

I got that, thanks. I'm just trying to understand what in this particular case would form the ingredients in making that assessment.

I find it unreasonable that George could fear being shot by his own gun and use that as justification for shooting Trayvon. George brought the gun with him. He should have thought about such consequences before he started toting a gun around. And once George had retrieved the gun, he alone has full control of it. It is George's hand on the gun and no trace of Trayvon's. George's finger is on the trigger and nobody elses. George has enough room to extend the gun away from his body which limits how close trayvon could have been at that instance.

If George is shooting out of fear, it is a blind fear and not a rational fear. People like that should not be allowed to carry guns without adult supervision.

 

[This is The End]

He immediately stopped following when asked.

Weird how in the video he specifically points out that when told to stop following M he chooses to keep going in the same direction and not return to the truck for quite a distance. He even points and says "back there they said are you following him".

Of course this is because he says he is going to get a house address from the far street, even though there was an address on the house right next to him, and it is closer to where he said he saw M cut through than the far street is (or at most, halfway). It's almost as if Z himself doesn't even think it makes sense when he is telling that part of the story, it's hard to be sure though of course. He seems to become noticeably flustered at 11:38 in that video.

Watch for 1 minute starting at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k07wZIU1siM#t=10m08s

 

[Rare Truth]

Because the DNA reports appear to most laymen to be a difficult read (myself included) - I wanted to learn more about some terms used. For ex, the mention of "STR DNA analysis performed..." I wanted to know what STR was.

It lead me to this site (as well as a number of other, of course) - here:

http://www.bodetech.com/forensic-solutions/resources-and-faqs/

The evidence they are able to cull from the tiniest bit of human cells is amazing, and sometimes decades - hell centuries later...but little questions I wondered: like can DNA evidence prove someone grabbed a shirt, for example, just from their skin cells being on the material.

Right off, my question was answered.

Touch DNA

Is it possible to obtain a DNA profile from an item that an individual has touched or handled?

Bode uses a touch evidence procedure for processing samples from areas where you would expect to find DNA (in the form of skin cells) from a person who has come in contact with the item (for example, the handle of a murder weapon or a pair of pants that have been pulled down). The success of touch DNA depends on the sampling method, the type of material, and the shedding capabilities of the suspect (some people naturally leave behind more skin cells).

And there were case scenarios, such as this:


Case Scenario: The suspect grabbed onto a sweatshirt that the victim was wearing and the victim was able to wiggle out and get away. The sweatshirt was left behind. Could this be tested for touch DNA?

Yes, it is best to send the entire sweatshirt and either provide a detailed description of where the attacker grabbed it, or mark the area on the clothing. We will take a sample from the clothing using the method that we deem suitable depending on the material type and size of contact area. We can also test for the wearer DNA in order to identify the individual who wore the clothing last. Since the item was not located on the victim, the actual wearer of the clothing may be disputed in court.

Fascinating, I tell ya.

 

[bookworm]

First of all, I already asked this, but was it even raining that much after the gunshot? You make it sound like it rained solid for hours that night...

Second of all, wasn't the body covered up?

It wasn't my intention to make it sound like it was raining solid for hours. I was only making observations that I picked up here.

Yes, it appears it was. At the time I made my post I had forgotten that.

 

[Unabogie]

Why things just don't add up George.

Zimmerman Re-enactment Video w. Notes pt. 1 (inc. comparisons to police call)



A video worth looking at:

I swear I didn't make this, but it echoes many of the points I was making about George's "circling" description and how that doesn't match the NEN call.

They miss one item that always jumps out at me. He says he told NEN that he'd meet them at the truck. But in his call, he clearly says "wait, don't meet me there, have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at". I don't see how that can be taken as anything but him setting out to find Trayvon again.

 

[bookworm]

Thank you. If they swabbed his fingernails but neglected to swab his hands, then yes, that would mitigate the importance of not finding blood there. In fact, if they neglected to take those swabs at all I'd be very pissed at LE.

If they swabbed, but didn't bag them, I'd have to hear more about how that would affect the DNA results.

If they found Trayvon's DNA but not George's, I'd consider that evidence that none of George's blood got on his hands. So far, that looks to be the case but we may be wrong.

So what about you? What do you think of witnesses changing their stories and the possibility that someone helped them change it?

 

[LTC8K6]

TM's body was covered by with a yellow police emergency tarp within minutes of being pronounced dead.

Raimondo covers the body some time after TM is pronounced dead, which was at 1930 hours.

We have some officers note that it was raining as they responded.

Also, it's clear that the cover is lifted from time to time by officers who arrive later, because they give their own descriptions of the clothes and the body.

One officer at least, takes a picture of TM's face.

FI Malphurs arrives at 2144 and describes TM's clothes, for example. He searches the body, I believe.

 

[Rare Truth]

Weird how in the video he specifically points out that when told to stop following M he chooses to keep going in the same direction and not return to the truck for quite a distance. He even points and says "back there they said are you following him".

Of course this is because he says he is going to get a house address from the far street, even though there was an address on the house right next to him, and it is closer to where he said he saw M cut through than the far street is (or at most, halfway). It's almost as if Z himself doesn't even think it makes sense when he is telling that part of the story, it's hard to be sure though of course. He seems to become noticeably flustered at 11:38 in that video.

Watch for 1 minute starting at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k07wZIU1siM#t=10m08s

That's why when I showed earlier about how Z lies on the fly, in the example of his testimony on the stand: First no, then I don't remember, then yes. -it struck me. How...how he does it.

With that brief example, and the many times we have heard him speak since, it's almost like he is grappling like a child would to get the right answer to his teacher

You can almost hear him think as he progresses with his story, and recognizing at some point it doesn't fit, so he very quickly adapts to come up with the right answer to make it fit...when flustered by the dissonance, he pulls the "i can't remember" card to buy him some contrivance time; he knows he has to get the answers right, and the criminal justice student, and son of two court-house parents - knows exactly what check boxes need to filled to fit the legal requirement to save his ass.

You can tell it's a skill he's honed well after many years.

 

[bookworm]

Well we know they examined his hands, since they noted on the autopsy report the tiny abrasion of the left ring finger. We know they scraped under his fingernails in order to find trace amounts of DNA. Does it really seem like they didn't swab any other blood they found? Wouldn't that strike you as really odd?

Yes, but we've seen how the authorities make mistakes. We're all human, aren't we? It IS a possibility, even though it's unlikely. We can't make the assumption they did what they should have done without something telling us that they did it.