Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

It was filmed the day they did the walk-through, and it was a part of the walk-through video which had been edited out (perhaps because it was at the beginning or the end of the walk-through). A female cop talks on the video about swelling and bruising on the left and right sides of Zimmerman's head; I think she actually points to an area on the left side of his head and says it doesn't look as swollen as it did the day before. It was around the time in O'Mara's presentation where he brought in the paramedic to talk about Zimmerman's injuries. There must be a video floating around somewhere?

No idea why the PA didn't mention it. I don't recall, did he or she mention bruising on the back of Zimmerman's head?

I was kinda asking for a date. I gatherer it was the day they did the walk through.

The PA who examined him mentioned none of that.

 

[johnny karate]

For those posters that are growing tired of denying discussing evidence, Frank Taffe was arrested for DUI this weekend.

Rare Truth in 3...2...1...

What evidence is being denied and who is denying it?

Please be sure to cite the evidence you are claiming is being denied, and quote the person(s) denying it.

 

[katy_did]

I was kinda asking for a date. I gatherer it was the day they did the walk through.

The PA who examined him mentioned none of that.

I don't know what date the walk through was. I thought it was the day after, but I could be wrong. He still has the bandages on the back of his head, if that gives any indication.

I think there had to be bruising to the back of Zimmerman's head because I can't see a way he could've gotten the cuts without it. All the more so if the injuries were really caused by him falling backwards from a single punch. So if the PA didn't mention bruising to the back of his head, perhaps that reduces the significance of him or her not mentioning bruising elsewhere on his head.

 

[Cylinder]

I thought it was the day after, but I could be wrong.

Feb. 27 at 5:20PM, so no - you're not wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

So there seems to be a consensus building that Zimmerman had more injuries than were documented in the medical reports.

I'd like to ask those who are jumping on that particular band wagon:

What justification can you offer for these discrepancies? Do imagine it's incompetence or carelessness on the part of two individual medical professionals?

If we can't trust the medical reports, what is the standard of evidence for determining the number and nature of Zimmerman's injuries? Is it sufficient for random people to merely claim an injury is an injury without the benefit of any medical expertise?

Would you be so quick to doubt the medical reports for a claim that Zimmerman had less injuries than they indicated? In other words, if we can dimiss the medical reports as being incomplete, why can't we also dismiss them for being just wrong?

This is really more of a rhetorical exercise as I fully expect the bare assertions and dodges to continue.

But the questions remain even if certain people aren't intellecually honest enough to address them.

 

[This is The End]

It was just ironic that NBS was defending a point that Cylinder had already conceded way back then. That some of the extra errors were probably just dried blood.

That was partially Firefox's fault!

I misspelled arrows so badly it thought I wanted errors.

 

[This is The End]

I think that argument can be made without all the "believer/belief/cult" lingo. And that lingo is inflammatory from any party. Can we please stop with this ********?

Four posts later:

I keep asking the Trayvon Truthers here just how many times Zimmerman fell and hit his head from that single punch... apparently he is very clumsy!

How can someone seriously compare the amount of evidence we have to 911 or Bigfoot?

 

[This is The End]

There's the truth, and there's the Truth^TM.

The latter requires thinking like a conspiracy theorist.

That's odd because you sure seem to be convinced that Z is innocent. Even though there is zero evidence so far to prove either guilt or innocence.

I'm sure you will try and say you are only doing that because of jury regulations. Even though this is a discussion forum and not a jury room.

 

[katy_did]

Feb. 27 at 5:20PM, so no - you're not wrong.

Thanks.

What justification can you offer for these discrepancies? Do imagine it's incompetence or carelessness on the part of two individual medical professionals?

Could it just be that the medics and the police have different motives in noticing the injuries? I don't know exactly what role the PA has - whether to document, treat or both - but he or she seems to have focused on the injuries which might've needed treatment, the bleeding wounds and the broken nose. Not on others, like bruising, which weren't going to need treatment anyway.

Regardless of the reason, we know there must've been bruising to the back of Zimmerman's head which isn't documented by the medics (at least, there must've been if he got the cuts in any of the ways proposed so far). The fact they didn't document those bruises makes it less surprising to me that they didn't document any others that might have been there.

 

[sgtbaker]

So there seems to be a consensus building that Zimmerman had more injuries than were documented in the medical reports.

I'd like to ask those who are jumping on that particular band wagon:

What justification can you offer for these discrepancies? Do imagine it's incompetence or carelessness on the part of two individual medical professionals?

If we can't trust the medical reports, what is the standard of evidence for determining the number and nature of Zimmerman's injuries? Is it sufficient for random people to merely claim an injury is an injury without the benefit of any medical expertise?

Would you be so quick to doubt the medical reports for a claim that Zimmerman had less injuries than they indicated? In other words, if we can dimiss the medical reports as being incomplete, why can't we also dismiss them for being just wrong?

This is really more of a rhetorical exercise as I fully expect the bare assertions and dodges to continue.

But the questions remain even if certain people aren't intellecually honest enough to address them.

I wouldn't call the medic report junk or incomplete, I would say that they are on the scene to observe and treat what is treatable on the scene and if necessary, take the patient to the hospital. As far as I know, their job is to look for conspicuous injuries that may require treatment. There is a reason why that is not the only part of the physical investigation into injuries, they are medical trained professionals, not investigators. They may not have noted, for instance, the two lumps that Katy pointed out because it can take time for blood to pool up and become swollen. In my experience, with three active/daredevil children, being on a first name basis at the local ER, different types of headwounds present themselves differently. For instance, I've noticed is a head bump on a corner of an object will swell almost instantly, while an even harder bump on a flat surface, like when my son fell off the top rung of a middle height diving board and landed on his head, didn't present any significant swelling until we were at the emergency room.
I almost didn't take him because he had no visible injuries, the only reason I did was because I don't mess around with head injuries. People actually die because of inconspicuous head trauma.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. Just because the report may not contain every single possible skin trauma, it doesn't mean the report is worthless.

 

[triforcharity]

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. Just because the report may not contain every single possible skin trauma, it doesn't mean the report is worthless.

I'll agree with that, and also the longer portion of your post also.

However, I do question why swelling and bruising wasn't noted by the PA.

I've personally written hundreds, if not thousands of medical incident reports. I would have included swelling as being noticed, especially in the case of a battery.

Could the bruising been missed by the medics? Sure. It may not have been there yet. However, the PA missing them, the next day, more than 12 hours later, I find......unusual.

I would love to see documents of these bruises and continued swelling almost 24 hours later.

 

[Rare Truth]

Just for you Cyl:




Frank Taaffe''s mug shot.


Aw, Tugboat's biggest defender and supporter, a drunk!


Who could see that coming?

 

[Unabogie]

Just for you Cyl:

[qimg]http://skeweddistribution.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/taaffe.jpg?w=384&h=480[/qimg]


Frank Taaffe''s mug shot.


Aw, Tugboat's biggest defender and supporter, a drunk!


Who could see that coming?

Well, there's an old saying (and I can't remember where I heard it):

"Ya plant corn, ya get corn."

 

[WildCat]

I'm claiming Zimmerman received two small cuts during the struggle. Perhaps one was sustained when he actually fell. I don't know.

Why you keep insisting multiple falls need to be involved remains a mystery.

There are people in this very thread arguing that the struggle consisted of a single punch by Martin, even suggesting Martin was trying to help Zimmerman back up after he knocked him down.

You think that is a ludicrous scenario, yes?

 

[WildCat]

It very well could come from one fall. Heads are hard and sometimes bounce.

But, you're welcome to attempt to deny that....

The bounce is of equal severity to the initial fall?

And how common is this bouncing for someone who isn't unconscious?

 

[WildCat]

Which has been answered a dozen times. I don't know of anyone that is actively participating in this thread that doesn't believe that a fight ensued.

Then there's clearly many posts here you haven't read.

 

[WildCat]

Proof that the marks in the photos are not dried blood and actual injuries, and also that some were not pre-existing.

Aaaaannnnnddddd......GO!

The photos and reports are quite clear. And I can't prove a negative, if you think the marks were pre-existing then you provide evidence. If wild speculation is all you have perhaps this isn't the forum for you, try ATS or something where that kind of stuff is encouraged.

 

[WildCat]

Which one are you referring to? Which day was it filmed?

I wonder why the PA that examined him didn't notice any swelling or bruising the next day?

Are you from the "George's wife worked him over that night to make it appear he had been punched" camp?

 

[Rare Truth]

Well, there's an old saying (and I can't remember where I heard it):

"Ya plant corn, ya get corn."

Ah, A Frank Taaffe original.

 

[Unabogie]

There are people in this very thread arguing that the struggle consisted of a single punch by Martin, even suggesting Martin was trying to help Zimmerman back up after he knocked him down.

You think that is a ludicrous scenario, yes?

The bounce is of equal severity to the initial fall?

And how common is this bouncing for someone who isn't unconscious?

Then there's clearly many posts here you haven't read.

The photos and reports are quite clear. And I can't prove a negative, if you think the marks were pre-existing then you provide evidence. If wild speculation is all you have perhaps this isn't the forum for you, try ATS or something where that kind of stuff is encouraged.

Are you from the "George's wife worked him over that night to make it appear he had been punched" camp?

Who was it just complaining about straw man posts around here?

If you have a gripe with a specific post, quote that post, explain your objection, and engage in debate about it.

This isn't anything but useless bickering.