Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I do see the recommendations for further dressing with most wounds, but the rationale for it goes more towards the other type of wound closures.

No it doesn't. The rationale for dressing closed wounds is the same regardless of closure method. I can say this confidently as a vet.

If that picture is accurate, I think using "glue" would be prudent just to stop the bleeding.

If Zimmerman had a gash on his head incurred from the ground or sidewalk, it would be pretty contaminated with dirt and other debris, even if it was washed as thoroughly as can be in the back of a police care. Closure is usually contradicated for dirty wounds because of the risk of infection.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by treis

Are you suggesting Zimmerman should have waited until he had life threatening injuries before defending himself?

No. That would have taken hours, judging by that picture.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by davidm

Okay. I was guilty of using some hyperbole when I said "life threatening". I admit that and apologize. What I should have said was that it doesn't appear to be consistent with repeated bashing against concrete (or is the story now that it was grass? I can't keep up.)

First, we have no idea what Zimmerman's information was during his interrogation - whether he claimed concrete or grass or whatever. Second - when you feel the back of your head hitting something hard enough to cause lacerations, you may be excused for thinking that maybe you're not on grass.

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by davidm

Okay. I was guilty of using some hyperbole when I said "life threatening". I admit that and apologize. What I should have said was that it doesn't appear to be consistent with repeated bashing against concrete (or is the story now that it was grass? I can't keep up.)

Martin's body was found in the middle of the grass, nowhere near the sidewalk, iirc.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by davidm

I think both Rand Rover and Shodan are attacking a straw man. The question, at least in my mind, wasn't whether there were any injuries at all. The question was the extent of the injuries. The question is, do they or do they not coincide with the claims of repeated bashing against concrete.

In the other, locked threads there were a number of posts that appeared to believe that Zimmerman had no visible injuries at all.

What I should have said was that it doesn't appear to be consistent with repeated bashing against concrete...

This is IMHO after all, but what experience are you basing this on?

Regards,
Shodan

[newme]

New information which came out in the hearing today. I am paraphrasing from memory:

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence to refute Mr Zimmerman's claim he turned around and was heading back in the direction of his truck?

Investigator: No

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence to refute Mr Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?

Investigator: No

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman's statements to police?

Investigator: Yes

We also heard there is a witness who saw "shadows through the window" of people moving about before the fight. They seemed to say someone was following someone else in the dogwalk area, heading north?? toward where the shooting occurred. Did anyone else catch that? This is the first I've heard about this witness.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by newme

New information which came out in the hearing today. I am paraphrasing from memory:

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence to refute Mr Zimmerman's claim he turned around and was heading back in the direction of his truck?

Investigator: No

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence to refute Mr Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?

Investigator: No

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman's statements to police?

Investigator: Yes

We also heard there is a witness who saw "shadows through the window" of people moving about before the fight. They seemed to say someone was following someone else in the dogwalk area, heading north?? toward where the shooting occurred. Did anyone else catch that? This is the first I've heard about this witness.

I didn't see the coverage, but I assume the state will try to show that Zimmerman's statements are self-serving and not credible, and try their case based on the remaining evidence.

[treis]

Originally Posted by treis

Are you suggesting Zimmerman should have waited until he had life threatening injuries before defending himself?

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

No. That would have taken hours, judging by that picture.

Ahh, so it's more of a "take your beating sucker" position?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Martin's body was found in the middle of the grass, nowhere near the sidewalk, iirc.

I recall hearing the claim that Zimmerman's head was beat repeatedly against concrete.

Here you go: http://nation.foxnews.com/george-zim...-graphic-photo

A new photograph obtained exclusively by ABC News showing the bloodied back of George Zimmerman's head, which was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin, gives possible credence to his claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nat...him-questioned

Neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman told police he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense after an altercation where Martin repeatedly bashed his head into a concrete walkway. Zimmerman was said to be bleeding from the nose and the back of his head, and his lawyer said Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose in the fight.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

No. That would have taken hours, judging by that picture.

Originally Posted by treis

Ahh, so it's more of a "take your beating sucker" position?

It's not really relevant until it's established who started the fight. Zimmerman has no defense if he shot Martin because he was losing a fight he started himself.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by treis

Ahh, so it's more of a "take your beating sucker" position?

More of a, try not to be such a pussy position. He put himself into this position when he got out of his truck to follow Martin. I don't see anyting in this whole mess that tells me he was even close to a near death situation. He got into an altercation that was his own fucking making. And he pulled out a gun to end it. Ergo ... pussy.


ETA: and spare me the "its not illegal to get out of a truck with a gun," bullshit too.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

More of a, try not to be such a pussy position. He put himself into this position when he got out of his truck to follow Martin. I don't see anyting in this whole mess that tells me he was even close to a near death situation. He got into an altercation that was his own fucking making. And he pulled out a gun to end it. Ergo ... pussy.

Ah yes. He should act tougher like calling other people pussies on the internet.

[Jack Batty]

At least I'm not shooting any body.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

It's not really relevant until it's established who started the fight. Zimmerman has no defense if he shot Martin because he was losing a fight he started himself.

According to Florida law, yes, he explicitly does.

[newme]

The investigator also mentioned Zimmerman claimed he went to look at a street sign. His neighborhood only has three named streets. I find it very hard to believe he wouldn't know the name of those streets. I can believe he didn't know the address. It will depend upon the exact wording of his statement.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Terr

According to Florida law, yes, he explicitly does.

Give me more details then. I haven't seen anything that supports your position.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by newme

The investigator also mentioned Zimmerman claimed he went to look at a street sign.

I'm glad that it's now been confirmed Zimmerman asserted this piece of ridiculousness, because up until today, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Originally Posted by you with the face

No it doesn't. The rationale for dressing closed wounds is the same regardless of closure method. I can say this confidently as a vet.



If Zimmerman had a gash on his head incurred from the ground or sidewalk, it would be pretty contaminated with dirt and other debris, even if it was washed as thoroughly as can be in the back of a police care. Closure is usually contradicated for dirty wounds because of the risk of infection.

Well now I'm officially disagreeing with you, but you're probably right to the extent use of cyanoacrylates with animals given the fur and cleanliness issues.

Here's a 2002 report from the Emergency Medicine Journal indicating no additional dressing is needed unless it's likely to be picked at, for instance by a very young child.

Here's an article quoting a New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that cyanoacrylates act as its own dressing. Singer, A.J., Hollander, J.E., & Quinn, J.V. (1997). Evaluation and management of traumatic lacerations. The New England Journal of Medicine, 33, 1142-1148.

Here's an article from a wound care journal for nurses indicating cyanoacrylate dressings are more useful since gauze and bandaging are not required: http://wocn.confex.com/wocn/2010am/w...Paper5015.html

Last, but, not least, here's a portion of a Google book, Biomaterials for Clinical Applications indicating no other dressing is needed (if link doesn't work, it's at p. 229): http://books.google.com/books?id=bXt...ed=0CC0Q6AEwAg

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by newme

New information which came out in the hearing today. I am paraphrasing from memory:

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence to refute Mr Zimmerman's claim he turned around and was heading back in the direction of his truck?

Investigator: No

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence to refute Mr Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin threw the first punch?

Investigator: No

Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman's statements to police?

Investigator: Yes

We also heard there is a witness who saw "shadows through the window" of people moving about before the fight. They seemed to say someone was following someone else in the dogwalk area, heading north?? toward where the shooting occurred. Did anyone else catch that? This is the first I've heard about this witness.

That is about what I remember. I'm bummed my recording didn't work. Here is what the Sentinel says:

State Attorney's investigator Dale Gilbreath testified earlier. O'Mara questioned him about the probable cause affidavit he signed for the second-degree murder charge. Gilbreath said he did not expect to testify at the hearing.
O'Mara grilled Gilbreath on his use of the word "profiling" in describing Zimmerman's behavior that night, asking why he used the term. Gilbreath said the term indicates that Zimmerman saw the teen, then formed an opinion of him not based on any facts.

O'Mara asked Gilbreath about unattributed statements in several sections of the affidavit.

"'Zimmerman confronted Martin.' Those words, where'd you get them from," O'Mara asked.

"According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occured," Gilbreath said. He said "confronted," the word O'Mara took issue with, was one of probably 30 he could have used.

Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda then questioned Gilbreath. He asked is there was any evidence that Trayvon Martin shouldn't have been in the neighborhood where the shooting occurred, or was breaking any law. Gilbreath said no.

Gilbreath testified that there is video of Trayvon Martin buying Skittles and iced tea before the shooting. He also said that Trayvon was unarmed.

During further questioning by O'Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed.

However, he said that Zimmerman's statements, as well as his description of the injuries he suffered, are contradicted by other evidence in the case.

I was rather amused by Gilbreath's answer to the question about the screaming on the recording where he actually mentioned the Orlando Sentinel. He also mentioned the FBI. It is pretty obvious that the prosecutor was unprepared about O'Mara's questions about the probable cause affidavit.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

No it doesn't. The rationale for dressing closed wounds is the same regardless of closure method. I can say this confidently as a vet.



If Zimmerman had a gash on his head incurred from the ground or sidewalk, it would be pretty contaminated with dirt and other debris, even if it was washed as thoroughly as can be in the back of a police care. Closure is usually contradicated for dirty wounds because of the risk of infection.

Actually, as a vet, maybe you wouldn't mind giving the thread a brief overview of how wounds should be treated, start to finish. I for one would appreciate a primer, since my approach is "splash it with rubbing alcohol and put a Band-Aid on it."

As a medical professional, what would you expect to be done by EMTs at the scene?

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Sorry about that. Here's the first missing article: http://m.emj.bmj.com/content/19/5/382.full

Here's the second: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

[Terr]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Give me more details then. I haven't seen anything that supports your position.

It only has been cited in these Zimmerman threads a few dozen times.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

Section 776.041 Subsection 2(a)

Apart from which, the prosecution during today's hearings testified, under oath, that they have no evidence on who started the fight.

[Airbeck]

They also said that they have evidence in conflict with his statement. If we have verified lies about him going back to his truck, and about the ridiculous street sign excuse, then isn't his whole story in doubt? How can we take anything he says with any credibility if his story has been proven to contain lies? If everything he did was on the up and up, then why lie to the police?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

If we have verified lies about him going back to his truck

"During further questioning by O'Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Terr

Apart from which, the prosecution during today's hearings testified, under oath, that they have no evidence on who started the fight.

No.

Dale Gilbreath testified that he was unaware of evidence on who started the fight.

That doesn't mean other investigators are not aware of other evidence.

[Airbeck]

ahem -

"Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman's statements to police?

Investigator: Yes"

OK even if we eliminate the going back to the truck thing from my post, the rest stands.

Can you refute what I quoted here?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Actually, as a vet, maybe you wouldn't mind giving the thread a brief overview of how wounds should be treated, start to finish. I for one would appreciate a primer, since my approach is "splash it with rubbing alcohol and put a Band-Aid on it."

As a medical professional, what would you expect to be done by EMTs at the scene?

Good thing Zimmerman didn't have a broken leg, or you with the face would say he should have been shot.

Come to think of it, maybe she would anyway.

Regards,
Shodan

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

Well now I'm officially disagreeing with you, but you're probably right to the extent use of cyanoacrylates with animals given the fur and cleanliness issues.

Okay, I can concede that depending on the wound and its location, this particular product might not require any secondary dressing.

But I still think none of this applies to Zimmerman's situation.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No.

Dale Gilbreath testified that he was unaware of evidence on who started the fight.

That doesn't mean other investigators are not aware of other evidence.

From the article: http://m.jacksonville.com/news/crime...martins-family

"During further questioning by O'Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed."

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

ahem -

"Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman's statements to police?

Investigator: Yes"

OK even if we eliminate the going back to the truck thing from my post, the rest stands.

Can you refute what I quoted here?

"Refute"? That's what was said. What's there to refute?

But you have no idea what evidence they have, how tenuous or strong it is and how much of Zimmerman's statements are contradicted. All you managed to bring up so far is Zimmerman getting out to look at street sign. That's *really* relevant to the case, isn't it?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

They also said that they have evidence in conflict with his statement. If we have verified lies about him going back to his truck, and about the ridiculous street sign excuse, then isn't his whole story in doubt?

What evidence is there that shows Zimmerman did not go back to his truck, or that proves that he did actually know what the sign said?

Regards,
Shodan

[Airbeck]

That they have evidence that contradicts his statement.

So therefore his statement was not 100% true.

What's not clear about this?

[Airbeck]

I said forget about those parts of my post I'm commenting on this:

"Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman's statements to police?

Investigator: Yes"

His statement is not 100% true. What causes a person to make false statements to the police? I wonder ...

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

They also said that they have evidence in conflict with his statement. If we have verified lies about him going back to his truck, and about the ridiculous street sign excuse, then isn't his whole story in doubt? How can we take anything he says with any credibility if his story has been proven to contain lies? If everything he did was on the up and up, then why lie to the police?

Wait a second. Where did you get the verified lies business?

O'Mara: Do you have evidence to refute Mr Zimmerman's claim he turned around and was heading back in the direction of his truck?

Gilbreath : No

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

That they have evidence that contradicts his statement.

So therefore his statement was not 100% true.

Wrong. They say they have evidence that contradicts his statement. That does not mean the evidence is correct, or that it is not contradicted by other evidence. As we saw from the affidavit of probable cause, the prosecution has this thing about not mentioning any evidence at all that may contradict their case.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Terr

It only has been cited in these Zimmerman threads a few dozen times.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

Section 776.041 Subsection 2(a)

a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;
[quote]

I haven't been following the other threads. I'd like to see more legal analysis on this topic. Since it's Florida I wouldn't be surprised if the law was intended to say you could attack someone and then kill them if they fought back, but I think it may require more interpretation than that.

Apart from which, the prosecution during today's hearings testified, under oath, that they have no evidence on who started the fight.

I'm not clear on this response. I assumed it meant no eyewitnesses that could establish that. The evidence as a whole could still lead to a conclusion that Zimmerman started the fight.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

That they have evidence that contradicts his statement.

So therefore his statement was not 100% true.

What's not clear about this?

Nope. That conclusion does not necessarily follow from that premise.

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Wait a second. Where did you get the verified lies business?

Yeah, I misread that, sorry. I've tried to take it back.

I'm concentrating on the part where the investigator said that they have evidence that contradicts with his statement. Not specifically what it is, but the fact that we know his statement is not 100% true.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Okay, I can concede that depending on the wound and its location, this particular product might not require any secondary dressing.

But I still think none of this applies to Zimmerman's situation.

Cool. Don't know if this applies either, but it could be a possible explanation for the missing bandages and whatnot. I thought it was brilliant when I thought of it last night while gluing a laceration on my leg.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

I said forget about those parts of my post I'm commenting on this:

"Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman's statements to police?

Investigator: Yes"

His statement is not 100% true. What causes a person to make false statements to the police? I wonder ...

No.

What is the evidence? How strong is it? And how material is the contradiction?

If the contradiction is that Zimmerman thought Martin was 25 years old, and it turns out that Martin was 17, the answer to your question is: an honest mistake.

If the contradiction is more serious, then the answer to your question might be: a desire to conceal guilt.

So which is it?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

I'm concentrating on the part where the investigator said that they have evidence that contradicts with his statement. Not specifically what it is, but the fact that we know his statement is not 100% true.

Again, no you don't know it. You know that the prosecution claims they have evidence that it isn't. Of course, they also may have evidence that it is. And you don't know how strong or tenuous that evidence is.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Yeah, I misread that, sorry. I've tried to take it back.

I'm concentrating on the part where the investigator said that they have evidence that contradicts with his statement. Not specifically what it is, but the fact that we know his statement is not 100% true.

No. What we know from what you said is that there is evidence which contradicts. The truth is not established by any of it.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Stoid

No. What we know from what you said is that there is evidence which contradicts. The truth is not established by any of it.

Two thumbs up. Exactly correct.

[Airbeck]

Well Z saying that he thought M was 25 would not be contradicted by the fact that he was in fact 17, because it is a statement of what he believed at the time. The fact that he was actually 17 does not mean that Z didn't actually think he was 25 at the time, right?

I would think that evidence contradicting his statement would be something casting doubt on an assertion of events or circumstances of the events in his statement.

You're right though, of course I do not know the details of what the evidence is or what part of his story is contradicted by it. Just that there is evidence of a contradiction.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Well Z saying that he thought M was 25 would not be contradicted by the fact that he was in fact 17, because it is a statement of what he believed at the time. The fact that he was actually 17 does not mean that Z didn't actually think he was 25 at the time, right?

I would think that evidence contradicting his statement would be something casting doubt on an assertion of events or circumstances of the events in his statement.

You're right though, of course I do not know the details of what the evidence is or what part of his story is contradicted by it. Just that there is evidence of a contradiction.

Yes. Without knowing how material the contradiction is, how strong the evidence is that creates the contradiction, and how reasonable the existence of a contradiction might be, you can't really make any judgment about it at all, can you?

[Lochdale]

So many people have jumped to so many conclusions in this case. It reminds of the Duke rape case in the knee-jerk reaction particularly with those of a liberal bent.

All that being said, I do think the prosecutor was right to move forward with the charges. There is certainly enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman went above and beyond self-defense.

However, it also seems that Zimmerman will have a very strong defense and absent the jury being biased is likely to beat the charges (unless there is a plea bargain).

One thing that has bugged me is the continued use of Martin's photo from several years ago. He did indeed look a lot different when Zimmerman confronted/attacked/defended himself from Martin.

[Shodan]

Also keeping in mind that it is not the purpose of the trial or the hearing to arrive at "the truth".

Regards,
Shodan

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes. Without knowing how material the contradiction is, how strong the evidence is that creates the contradiction, and how reasonable the existence of a contradiction might be, you can't really make any judgment about it at all, can you?

That's correct. I appear to have *ahem* jumped the gun a little bit as far as what the significance of this is, if you'll pardon the pun.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Lochdale

a very strong defense

I am curious to know why you think it's very strong.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Two thumbs up. Exactly correct.

Did you ever read Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"? If so do you recall what a "Fair Witness" is? It had a huge impact on me, it's such a fantastic concept:

Fair Witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. An eidetic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training.

In Heinlein’s society, a Fair Witness is a highly reputable source of information. By custom, a Fair Witness acting professionally, generally wearing distinctive white robes, is never addressed directly, and is never acknowledged by anyone present.

A Fair Witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. For example, a character in the book is asked to describe the color of a house seen in the distance. The character responds, “It’s white on this side”; whereupon it is explained that one would not assume knowledge of the color of the other sides of the house without being able to see them. Furthermore, after observing another side of the house one should not then assume that any previously seen side was still the same color as last reported, even if only minutes before.

I love that.

And it suddenly occurs to me that the Fair Witness should actually say: "it appears to be white on this side"...