State Pushes To Keep Trayvon Martins Past Out of Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by shepseskaf

There was no DNA evidence or physical marks...

It looks to me like Zimmerman's head was covered with quite a bit of DNA evidence.

[

source

I really do wish that Zimmerman was guilty, simply because he acted incredibly stupid about the whole situation and a kid died as a result of their combined stupidity. However, I don't think he is guilty given the evidence that is publicly available. If he is convicted I hope it is for the right reasons, like some evidence that we have not yet seen or a legal premise that we are not aware of, and not simply because of his race or beliefs.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by shepseskaf

 

There was no DNA evidence or physical marks...

It looks to me like Zimmerman's head was covered with quite a bit of DNA evidence.

Those are photos, not DNA evidence -- photos that, by themselves, do not confirm gz's story. These photos, in my view, do not conform to the images shown in the police video of gz when he was brought into the station house.

I'll remind you that actual DNA evidence found on Trayvon's body during the autopsy do not support the story about a violent struggle, as described by gz.

reply to post by shepseskaf


I am aware that the photos are not DNA evidence in the sense that you meant. I was making a morbid joke about his head being covered in blood, which contains DNA, from the beating that he took. The blood was likely gone in later photos because the medics cleaned and inspected his wounds.

What DNA evidence would be on the body that would prove a struggle occurred, and the lack of which would prove there was no struggle? If there was no struggle who mashed Zimmerman's face up? I'm genuinely interested in this because, like I said, I wish he was guilty of something but just don't think the facts indicate his guilt.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by shepseskaf

 

I am aware that the photos are not DNA evidence in the sense that you meant. I was making a morbid joke about his head being covered in blood, which contains DNA, from the beating that he took. The blood was likely gone in later photos because the medics cleaned and inspected his wounds.

What DNA evidence would be on the body that would prove a struggle occurred, and the lack of which would prove there was no struggle? If there was no struggle who mashed Zimmerman's face up? I'm genuinely interested in this because, like I said, I wish he was guilty of something but just don't think the facts indicate his guilt.

The DNA evidence was well covered in the following article:

my.firedoglake.com...

The DNA results do not support Zimmerman’s claim that Martin assaulted him.

Zimmerman claimed that Martin punched him in the nose stunning and knocking him to the ground. Martin mounted him as he lay flat on his back, and started hitting him repeatedly in the face with his fists. Then he grabbed both sides of Zimmerman’s head and began slamming the back of his head into repeatedly into the cement.

When Zimmerman started screaming for help, Martin attempted to smother him by placing his hands over Zimmerman’s mouth and nose.

If this story were true, one would expect to see injuries on Zimmerman’s face and the back of his head, but there are no injuries, with the exception of a scab on the right side of the bridge of his nose and two little cuts or lacerations to the back of his head. These two superficial cuts bled copiously as scalp wounds tend to do.

The blood flow from those wounds is consistent with Zimmerman’s head in an upright position leaning forward and inconsistent with his claim that he was lying on his back.

One also would expect injuries to Martin’s hands, but there is only one small abrasion on the ring finger of his left hand where a ring normally would be worn. (Martin did not wear a ring)

Martin’s only bleeding wound was from the gunshot to his heart.

Now let’s take a look at the DNA evidence.

Left and Right Lower sleeves and Cuffs of Martin’s Shirt and Sweatshirt

No blood detected on any of them.

Martin’s DNA was detected on all of them. There were no DNA results foreign to Martin, with the exception of the left cuff and lower sleeve of the shirt, but the data was insufficient to include anyone due to its limited nature.

Martin’s Fingernail Cuttings

No DNA results foreign to Martin were found.

Note: The absence of Zimmerman’s DNA on the fingernail cuttings and the absence of injuries to Martin’s hands consistent with the beating Zimmerman described, as well as the absence of blood and Zimmerman’s DNA on the lower sleeves and cuffs of Martin’s shirt and sweatshirt leads me to conclude that Zimmerman’s story about Martin almost beating him to death is a lie.

In fact, other than Zimmerman’s story, I do not see any evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman.

He was certainly injured, but there are other possible causes for those injuries.

Martin’s Shirt (ME-8)

Bloodstain A: matches Zimmerman

Bloodstain B: matches Martin

Stain C no blood and no DNA

Bloodstain D: mixed DNA profile likely containing both Martin and Zimmerman

Bloodstain E: matches Martin

Martin’s Hooded Sweatshirt (ME-12)

Blood matches Martin.

Zimmerman’s DNA not present

Conclusion

The only place where Zimmerman’s blood and DNA are present is Martin’s shirt, which he was wearing underneath the hooded sweatshirt.

Bloodstain A is all Zimmerman

Bloodstain D is a mixed DNA sample containing Martin and Zimmerman’s DNA.

Pending review of color photographs of the two bloodstains on Martin’s shirt containing Zimmerman’s blood, I am inclined to believe that they are the result of any of the following:

(1) dripped blood from Zimmerman’s wounds as he leaned forward above Martin’s body either before or after the shot, or

(2) transferred blood from Zimmerman’s hands as he handled Martin’s body.

Originally posted by flobot
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

Zimmerman is on trial, not Martin.

This is akin to saying a rape victim was a slut in the past, so she deserved it.

Yep, but the Zimmerman followers don't get it. Of course they'd like to put Martin on trial to deflect attention from their client. Zimmerman stalked his prey and brought a gun to a fist fight like a coward.

Zimms past is most relevant because Zim had put himself in similar circumstances in the recent past and Zim was known as a racist.

reply to post by shepseskaf


The information you posted is not written by an expert in the field. It is written by a defense attorney named Frederick Leatherman. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but its hardly conclusive either. Leatherman does not seem to have a very good professional or academic reputation.

The medical examiner said that Martin had injuries to his hands that could have been caused by attacking Zimmerman, or while defending himself from Zimmerman.

Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles
Autopsy Report

Originally posted by shepseskaf
I'll remind you that actual DNA evidence found on Trayvon's body during the autopsy do not support the story about a violent struggle, as described by gz.

I dunno ... the news reports (if they are reliable .. and that's a big 'IF') state that he had bruises on his knuckles. He had been beating something up before he died.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Zimms past is most relevant because Zim had put himself in similar circumstances in the recent past and Zim was known as a racist.

Really? Please post the evidence that shows he's a racist.
And not the doctored MSNBC and CBS tapes.
I'd like to know how this white/black/hispanic fella who feely tutored city kids is a racist.

Originally posted by karen61560
Well you are probably one of those people who think that if a women dresses sexy and gets raped she was asking for it. Or if that same woman was sleezy, or slutty and had lots of partners you could bring those things up at the trial to get an aquittal. Either way its wrong. Past behaviour is not relavant to what happened only what happened that night is important.

Just stop it. You didn't read the thread ... did you? :shk: I already said that past behavior is irrelevant to what happened and only what happened that night is important. I already used the 'rape' thing in discussion. And what is sad is that there are people who gave you stars for this statement of yours .. they obviously didn't read the thread either.

Originally posted by Slugworth
What if the woman making the accusation has a history of making verifiably false rape accusations or using a rape claim in an extortion attempt? Would that history be relevant? What about a man who has a history of sexual assault? Would that be relevant?

Good point. I've gotta think about that one ....

As for the Martin/Zimmerman event, I would think it all comes down to one thing ... did Martin jump Zimmerman when he was going back to his vehicle .. or did Zimmerman just shoot Martin for no reason? What these two did elsewhere would be irrelevant I'd think.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
Zimmerman has lied and changed his story a million times.

Would you post credible information to show us this 'changed his story a million times'?
Thank you.

He's a murderer with a violent past himself.

Martin is a druggie who gets into fights and is guilty of theft.

If you are going to bring up the past of Zimmerman, then Martin's is fair game as well.
Same/same.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." Both these felonies are considered third-degree. In the same year (2005), Zimmerman's ex-fiance, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order, alleging domestic violence.

Interesting info. (do we have some links? thanks)
So both Martin and Zimmerman have 'pasts' that would be damaging to their cases.
So either they both have to have their pasts ignored .. or both are put into play.
Either both are relevant .. or both aren't. IMHO

Originally posted by FlyersFan.

As for the Martin/Zimmerman event, I would think it all comes down to one thing ... did Martin jump Zimmerman when he was going back to his vehicle ..

While I'm fully aware there are some dumb criminals out in the wild, if TM was that dumb that he'd lie in wait to give someone a vicious beating and then when they walked past him totally oblivious to his presence, give them an alert before he'd even closed ground, it would seem to suggest that the chances that he wouldn't have already been arrested at least once for his dumb-assed criminality were very slim. I find it far more believable that he wasn't very criminally inclined, than that he was a dumb, violent criminal who only got unlucky in his criminal endeavours at the age of 17.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
or did Zimmerman just shoot Martin for no reason?

Has this seriously been suggested anywhere on the internets?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
What these two did elsewhere would be irrelevant I'd think.

Unless events in the past show similarities to what occurred here. Are you aware of any incident in TM's past that is indicative that he might attack a complete stranger for seemingly no good reason? How about any in Z's past that indicate he might try to lay hands on a complete stranger who he felt was in the wrong, and who needed to be corrected by Z?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by shepseskaf
In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer." Both these felonies are considered third-degree. In the same year (2005), Zimmerman's ex-fiance, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order, alleging domestic violence.

Interesting info. (do we have some links? thanks)
So both Martin and Zimmerman have 'pasts' that would be damaging to their cases.
So either they both have to have their pasts ignored .. or both are put into play.
Either both are relevant .. or both aren't. IMHO

Do "we" have link? This isn't rocket science. The information on gz's criminal past isn't hard to find:

usnews.nbcnews.com...

As the stalker and aggressor, gz's past -- by necessity and by law -- will be more scrutinized. Trayvon was an innocent teen minding his own business before being murdered by a man who had no right to approach him, who had been told to stay away, and who specifically was prohibited by his "neighborhood watch" rules from approaching anyone, especially when armed. gz is on trial because he was the one who caused the situation.

The onus of past behavior is almost all on gz, not on the victim who was murdered. Let's not pretend that if the shoe was on the other foot that people like you would be screeching about Trayvon's past. As it stands, Trayvon has no juvenile offender record. gz has felony arrests on his record. One does not equal the other.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by shepseskaf

 

The information you posted is not written by an expert in the field. It is written by a defense attorney named Frederick Leatherman. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but its hardly conclusive either. Leatherman does not seem to have a very good professional or academic reputation.

The medical examiner said that Martin had injuries to his hands that could have been caused by attacking Zimmerman, or while defending himself from Zimmerman.

Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles
Autopsy Report

You're ignoring the obvious. What does a slight injury on a part of the hand mean when there is no DNA from gz on Trayvon's hands at all? The violent scenario posed by gz, in which Trayvon held his head, then put his fingers over his mouth in a very aggressive manner would have left gz's DNA all over his hands. There would be no way to avoid it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by shepseskaf
I'll remind you that actual DNA evidence found on Trayvon's body during the autopsy do not support the story about a violent struggle, as described by gz.

I dunno ... the news reports (if they are reliable .. and that's a big 'IF') state that he had bruises on his knuckles. He had been beating something up before he died.

That is incorrect, according to the autopsy report, medical examiners found a scar on one of Martin’s fingers and a small abrasion on another. This would obviously indicate a healed injury on one hand, and a more recent injury on the other. Stating that had "bruises on his knuckles" would be a mis-charactization by using very specific language.

newsfeed.time.com...

Originally posted by shepseskaf
Trayvon was an innocent teen minding his own business ... .

That has yet to be determined.
Just because someone is dead, doesn't mean they are the victim.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
That is incorrect, according to the autopsy report, medical examiners found a scar on one of Martin’s fingers and a small abrasion on another.

See .. that's why we can't trust what is in the news. It's all spin.
Were there really 'bruises' .. or 'abrasions' ... or was there a 'small abrasion'' ....

That is why I'm looking forward to the trail and EVIDENCE .. not spin in the news.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
Do "we" have link? This isn't rocket science. .

Dude .... I complimented you on the information and politely asked for alink so I could see where you got the info. Your tart response was uncalled for.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
Let's not pretend that if the shoe was on the other foot that people like you would be screeching about Trayvon's past.

'People like me'?? You don't know me. Just stop.

I stand by what I said ... either they both have their 'history' included or they both have it rejected. Either the only thing that matters is what happened that night .... or it all matters. Pick one or the other.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by shepseskaf
Trayvon was an innocent teen minding his own business ... .

That has yet to be determined.

No, that has already been determined. The evidence clearly shows that Trayvon Martin went to the local store to buy Skittles and a cold drink, both of which he was carrying while talking to a friend on the phone.

Had gz not chosen to aggressively insert himself into the situation, Trayvon would have walked to the place where his father was staying, and no one would have died that night.

As originally stated, Trayvon was an innocent teen minding his own business.

The rest of the evidence (bruised fingers, etc.) will be examined in court, which I look forward to..

I dont know if anyone has said this already, I only read the first page, but I'm seeing a lot of people agree that Martin's past crimes should not be admissible. I disagree to a point. If his past shows that he's a violent kid, then definitely, it should be shown. I'll use a rape example like I saw someone use earlier...

If a rape suspect has been accused of rape, and it was clear that he was there, and said rape suspect has 3 or four previous rape convictions on his record, you damn right thats admissible.

And saying Martin was defending himself is wrong as well, self defense is actions taken with no possible escape, in this case, if you are cornered or what not...kid got him down to the ground, could have ran away, became assault when he mounted Zimm and continued battering him(if that is what indeed happened)...no matter if Zimm had a right to pursue or not.

Originally posted by shepseskaf

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by shepseskaf
Trayvon was an innocent teen minding his own business ... .

That has yet to be determined.

No, that has already been determined. The evidence clearly shows ...

Dude .. NOTHING has been determined. There is no 'evidence' in the press .. only spin, media hype, and doctored tapes, etc etc. The real evidence that will either damn or clear Zimmerman will be in the trial.