O'Mara Denies Giving Zimmerman's Medical Report to ABC News

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:31:40 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Mark O'Mara says on camera he did not leak Zimmerman's medical report to ABC News. I'd bet he's telling the truth and didn't leak it. Who's suggesting he did? Team Crump, of course.

O'Mara has had this report for weeks. He had it in court with him at the bond hearing and said he hadn't yet turned it over to the prosecution. Zimmerman's father, brother and friends referred to it in interviews weeks ago.

The report was given exclusively to Matt Guttman of ABC News. [More...]

When did he get it? Everyone's assuming it came from the discovery provided by the state. Maybe he's had it for a while, having received it from one of Zimmerman's friends or family members, but he and ABC decided not to release it until the announcement had been made that the discovery had been turned over to the defense. Why would that date make it okay? Because in the media's view, the public records law allows the public and media to obtain discovery the day it is released.

What better day to release an exclusive than one in which attention is already focused on the case. (ABC released its exclusive photo showing Zimmerman’s injuries the day of the bond hearing, which it proudly announced here. (Warning about ABC news articles, they have video that starts playing automatically -- I rarely read or link to their articles because of the intrusiveness, but in this case, they are the source so it's hard to avoid. That their videos aren't set to the off position, allowing to you click and watch if you want to, is completely unacceptable and boycott-worthy.)

So who gave it to Guttman if he didn't get it from the discovery? It’s unlikely the doctor provided it, he’d be breaching confidentiality. It could be one of Zimmerman's friends or relatives, who had received a copy and initially provided it to O'Mara. Zimmerman was still in custody when O'Mara told the court about it at the bond hearing. He didn't give it to O'Mara.

This was what O'Mara feared when he told the the Judge whose husband worked with CNN analyst Mark NeJame he might request she be recused from the case. At the brief court hearing (video here)at which he described why he might move for recusal, he said he was concerned about the possibility that Zimmerman's family had an ongoing relationships with NeJame -- which he couldn't control. ( His fear appears to be well-founded. It was NeJame just a week ago who brought out a copy of a Zimmerman family photo on CNN which he said he had asked the family give to someone who gave it to him. Watch the video in the article.)

O'Mara couldn't control the leak of the medical report any more than he could the photo. Just because it helps Zimmerman, doesn't mean he had anything to do with it.

Guttman and ABC picked the timing of the release of the contents of the report. Just because the report was contained in the discovery doesn't mean that's where they got it. What better day than to release it than the day after the discovery was turned over, when everyone is curious as to what was the discovery contained?

Maybe my speculation is wrong and someone not associated with the defendant provided it to Guttman. But if it was Zimmerman's family and/or friends, I think they may end up hurting Zimmerman's case more than helping it by trusting and working with the media. They are feeding right into Team Crumps' playbook,, giving them an opportunity to claim Zimmerman isn’t playing fair.

The media doesn’t care about George Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial. It cares about being first to report news and getting exclusives. George Zimmerman has a lawyer. His family and friends need to respect O'Mara's decisions about what should be shared with the media and when.

< NY Times Details Missteps In Trayvon Martin Shooting Investigation | Thursday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

O'Mara Denies Giving Zimmerman's Medical Report to ABC News | 75 comments (75 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why not O'Mara? (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by lawstudent on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:29:20 PM EST

Is it not out of the question to believe that O'Mara in fact leaked this report? I understand he denies it, and you have your reasons for believing him, but as this site prefers discussion of facts, and making clear when speculation is just that, is not this whole post speculation as to who leaked the report?

There is absolutely no way to know at this point whether O'Mara, Crump, Corey, etc. leaked this report, and to me, this post seems more of a continued campaign to discredit Crump...

Crump richly deserves to be discredited. (2.00 / 0) (#29)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:11:54 PM EST

He's acted discreditably.

He obviously intentionally mislead the media by providing the media with a picture of Trayvon when he was probably about 12, and only that picture, for a long time, or let Julison Communications which he engaged do it, had them tell the press Trayvon was 140 lbs when he's 160 according to police, and had them say Zimmerman was 250 when he's about 170. These things and the narrative about iced tea and skittles and a kid who was an honor student, rather than a mediocre one, and who had a spotless record, when in fact he'd been suspended from school three times in the last year for ever longer periods of time, and found with probably stolen girls/women's jewelry in his backpack -- were all part of lies and deception designed to form the first and now lasting general public perceptions about this trace.

I trust nothing he says.


given that this is a criminal defense site (5.00 / 0) (#34)
by CST on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:28:46 PM EST

you may want to re-think your language here:

"probably stolen girls/women's jewelry in his backpack"

I'm 99% sure that if you made an accusation like that against the defendent this comment would be deleted.

And as for the rest... The idea that being a "mediocre" student somehow makes you less worthy, is just offensive.


Oh rubbish. Your being offended is (2.00 / 0) (#43)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:55:02 PM EST

ridiculous and it's against a strawman you've erected.

And as for the rest... The idea that being a "mediocre" student somehow makes you less worthy, is just offensive.

My point wasn't to denigrate Trayvon it was to point out how the Team Trayvon narrative of a squeeky clean little kid who could hurt a fly even if he wanted to, was a pack of lies invented by Crump and Julison Communications. My point was to denigrate Crump. It was Crump and Julison who were making a deal about Trayvon being a consistent honor student, not me making one of him not being.


really? (5.00 / 0) (#44)
by CST on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:01:24 PM EST

"My point wasn't to denigrate Trayvon"

Then why the "probably stolen"? Because that, IMO, is pretty much you doing exactly that. I notice you didn't respond to that. And in that context, yes, that's how I read the rest of your comment.


: Becuase I was pointing out that (none / 0) (#56)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:17:10 PM EST

Crump's painting him as someone with a spotless record was intentionally highly misleading. Yes intention can and should be inferred.

Who was it ... (none / 0) (#63)
by Yman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:22:35 PM EST

... that described Martin as "squeaky clean"?

These straw arguments are funny.


Martin's weight was an estimate ... (none / 0) (#64)
by Yman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:29:38 PM EST

... based on the police viewing his body, fully clothed. - not an actual weight, although at least you've finally dropped the "+" after the 160. Martin doesn't weigh "about 170", as you've said several times. His weight when admitted to the jail was 185 pounds.


You meant (none / 0) (#68)
by NYShooter on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:59:53 PM EST

Z "was 185 pounds." Right?


: You're right (none / 0) (#69)
by Yman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:50:10 PM EST

I meant Zimmerman was 185 lbs. The autopsy report indicates Martin was 5'11" and 158 lbs.

ABC didn't "hold" this story (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by gyrfalcon on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:34:23 PM EST

Jeralyn, your last sentence explains why. "The media doesn't care about George Zimmerman's right to a fair trial. It cares about being first to report news and getting exclusives."

Nobody, I mean nobody, in media holds a good scoop like this for a later time. Why? Because there's the very large risk that the more time that goes by, the more likely some other media outlet will get the same info and put it out there ahead of them.

People who leak info like this almost always do it for a purpose of their own -- even if it's no more than their own personal sense of importance, as in, say, an anonymous court clerk -- and if they wait in vain for it to be published, they'll take it to somebody else who will publish it right away.

The odds are about 100 to 1 or more that however ABC got the info, they got it no more than 24 hours before they reported it, and these days probably just a few hours or even less.

DeeDee's deposition. (2.00 / 0) (#74)
by Doug1111 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:03:35 PM EST

I'm copying this from today's Zimmerman thread on discovery info since that threat has reached 200 and is now closed.

I listened to the DeeDee clip.

There isn't too much new on it that's of any importance.

One thing though that is important is that she says he got very close to his house at one point which is why he said he wasn't going to run again as DeeDee says she was urging.

She's pretty unclear about what happens next until she reports them close to each other and Trayvon demanded she says "what are you following me for?" to which she repeats here as she said on the tape that Crump played for Guzman of the local ABC news "what are you doing around here?" I think she may well be covering up that Trayvon had hidden himself and was waiting for Zimmerman to arrive to ambush him, which is Zimmerman's version. If he didn't want to confront Zimmerman why didn't he just go inside his house and lock the door? DeeDee does say here as she said on the recording played for local ABC news that it was Trayvon who first verbally confronted Zimmerman.

It also seemed to me that the prosecutor lead his deposed witness a great deal, and also that he didn't probe the crucial bits of time between when Trayvon was very near his house and when the verbal exchange and then fight began.

DeeDees conclusion that Zimmerman must have started the physical fight also seems to be based on nothing more than what she wants to believe. Her saying that she heard a voice saying get off me and that it was Trayvon's also didn't sound credible to me. She'd previously said the call was cut off right after Zimmerman responded after being challenged with "what are you doing around here?" I think that bit was fabricated and the prosecutor didn't probe it much either.

Sanford PD? (none / 0) (#1)
by Addison on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:49:36 PM EST

Could the Sanford PD be the source? Would they ever have access to the report through any channels? Because ABC News was also who got the initial police station video, right? Or, if it's not them, perhaps it's the same source somewhere that leaked the medical report, the police station video, and the on-scene photo of GZ's head?

: not Sanford PD I think (none / 0) (#2)
by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:22:47 AM EST

I don't think this medical report was leaked by the Sanford PD, but the only reason I think this is because it seems so much more likely to have been the Zimmerman family, going around their own counsel. If they are going behind O'Mara's back they are not helping themselves. I don't necessarily think this is "playing into team Crump's playbook" like Jeralyn is saying but she does make a compelling case for the wild-card element the family has shown in the past. Let's not forget the Pay Pal incident, which flabbergasted poor hard working O'Mara. I just think it's stupid in general not to run things by your defense lawyer first.
I hate to bring it up, but would ABC pay money for something like this? I'm not a cable news "infotainment" expert. Matt Gutman seems to be one of the newer breed of tv reporters tho, ever ready to grab up a scoop by whatever means needed. His agenda is ratings however, not advocating for a verdict as I see it. He's happy for controversy however and that might mean he is going to err on one side or the other as he scramble for eyeballs.
The local abc affiliate ran a couple of un-sourced, not a shred of proof stories very recently that aren't worth detailing except to say that it was whacky how poorly they were written. One claimed the FBI was about to charge GZ with a hate crime and the other claimed it had news about Trayvon's knuckles (sic) I think. (Trayvon seems to have one knuckle injured on his left hand. I wouldn't care to guess how badly, or what that tells us. )
Both stories didn't even bother to say "a little bird told me" or say an "unnamed source says"and were likely grounds for deletion on a comment on this site, such was the air of rank speculation involved.
Is there a link between Gutman and the local affiliate? Who knows. He's likely camped there in Sanford and at the least using their edit bay/ fax machine / coffee pot on occasion if he is coordinating with the network headquarters.
But while we are speculating, let's not forget what the Zimmerman family likes to do - reach out to the locals. The father gave a fairly revealing interview to a local reporter he likely watched regularly, at a time when George wasn't necessarily getting the best legal advice. Robert Zimmerman did a lengthy recitation of one narrative his son may have given the Sanford PD. "Daddy Zimm" seems to think it was a good idea at the time. O'Mara doesn't seem to favor these same tactics however.
Did the Zimmerman family have access to Trayvon's medical report - I don't know what they have and don't have from O'Mara yet from the discovery materials. But stranger things are possible. I don't think the local affiliate HAD the actual papers they were peddling however. Sorry I can't keep all this in my head anymore. A lot has happened in the last 24 hours.
The police station video was obtained through a media request to the city, either thru Bonaparte or the Mayor who are always hoping to salvage the reputation of their fair city. The timing of the release was in some ways a sop to the literally millions people who wanted an arrest to happen when one was not forthcoming.The video was a "virtual perp walk," and only after it was released did the flap about a seeming lack of injuries came up.
We don't know if the city fathers, as I call them gave it much thought regarding that part of it, the injuries shown or not. The pressure on them was intense at the time, pretty much during the peak, but late enough in the swell that EVERYONE had a chance to weigh in and twist arms and demand action, etc. I know the police chief objected to the city releasing the 911 calls and GZ's non-emergency call. Can't recall just now if he signaled his opinion on the "virtual perp walk." It caused a sensation, but at the heart of it I do think part of the motive for the police station video release was an effort to calm the waters. It just backfired, is all. Not every action here is a partisan effort to get one verdict or another. There is a lot of CYA to spread around, too.
Interestingly enough, Corey's original gag request with the first judge seems to have coincided with the 911 calls and police visit video being taken down off the Sanford city's website. It seems that was more of a courtesy than an actual legal response however. Hard to know fully what was going on there since by rights the material was public property and already on record, etc. IANAL but there was some maneuvering there that I've not seen detailed yet.
And some things here, like the heart of the whole case, are things we may never know fully.

judge still deliberating on seals (none / 0) (#3)
by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:44:30 AM EST

I wonder if the leak was an attempt to foil a request by Corey to seal some of these records? Maybe that's super obvious?

I really don't have much perspective on these issues of spin that play out on cable news. I'm an optimist and still think GZ is going to have a fair trial with an unbiased jury who can see thru hype.

If it were a "low blow" of some kind it can always backfire, I know enough about the law that it's a bad idea to anger the judge.

Sorry for my mistake reading Jeralyn's post (none / 0) (#5)
by 12345 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:17:19 AM EST

I now realize that Jeralyn was only blaming Team Crump for suggesting O'Mara leaded the medical report, not blaming Team Crump for the leak.

I agree that it is likely that the family of George Zimmerman gave it to Gutman quite some time ago, but I think ABC may be more concerned about how it is perceived to be acting in this case, and how it does act, than is allowed for in Jeralyn's analysis. They may also have consulted in-house lawyers about how to handle this.

Deja Vu (none / 0) (#6)
by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:23:13 AM EST

But they have never been shy about attempting to try this case in the media . . .

Are you actually suggesting that Team Zimmerman instigated the media trial?

It was the same in the Duke lacrosse case. The defendants were trashed in the media. It would have been foolish not to fight back.

Nope. (none / 0) (#7)
by 12345 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:24:06 AM EST

By I stand by what I actually wrote.

From the start, Zimmerman and his family has been unwisely overeager to get their side out to the media. While I don't see the choice of O'Mara as unwise, I do think they were drawn to him because they knew him from the media and thought he would help them in the media.

It would have been foolish for all people in this case not to fight for in the media what they believe to be justice. I'm not going to defend all the actions undertaken by all the parties, and it may yet emerge that some have been acting unethically, not just unwisely, but the death of Trayvon Martin, in my view, warranted review, and until a judge throws out the charges, the case should go to trial. We all have a responsibility in that regard, including the media, but unless I am wrong, the judge sits in the catbird's seat of ensuring a fair trial.

Thus far, I see nothing in the publication of George Zimmerman's medical records that jeopardizes Zimmerman's ability to get a fair trial. (But maybe I'm missing something.) Maybe it aids Crump's playbook, but that is tactics, not unfairness.


Choice of Venue (none / 0) (#8)
by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:11:38 AM EST

I don't think I expressed myself clearly on the first try.

What I object to, is the implication that Zimmerman and his supporters had any choice about whether the case would be tried in the media. It was already being prosecuted in the media. Lawrence O'Donnell said 'I feel like a prosecutor tonight.' Video.Transcript.


Sure they had choices (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by 12345 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:35:55 AM EST

I'm not going to get into defending the media here either, but to claim that ZImmerman's "supporters" were obliged to define themselvels as "supporters" who had to engage in manipulating the media kind of takes personal responsibility to truthfulness and justice out the window.

I'm happy to wait for the real trial, but many actions undertaken by Zimmerman and his "supporters" as a media strategy were purely their own concoction.


Strawmen (none / 0) (#22)
by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:17:42 PM EST

The case was being tried in the media, and would continue to be regardless of anything Zimmerman or any of his sympathizers did or didn't do.


nevermind-- You're absolutely right. (none / 0) (#23)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:40:37 PM EST

But that doesn't mean they aren't responsible (none / 0) (#28)
by 12345 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:10:20 PM EST

I fail to see how "they started it" excuses the actions of others.


: They had to fight (none / 0) (#38)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:34:53 PM EST

back.
It's like being punched by someone excused you from punching back, both legally and morally.

I don't agree at all. They were wise to start (none / 0) (#40)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:37:48 PM EST

getting their side out, given what Crump and Julison communications were doing. They should have started doing so much earlier in fact. That was their biggest mistake.


that's not right (none / 0) (#72)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 18, 2012 at 03:17:24 AM EST

please check your facts before posting things that are easily shown to not to be true. You write:

I do think they were drawn to him [O'Mara] because they knew him from the media and thought he would help them in the media.

They contacted NeJame who declined the case and recommended O'Mara. I really don't want misinformation spread through this site.


I don't see the lawyer for The Martins (none / 0) (#9)
by ruffian on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:59:49 AM EST

accusing O'Mara in the article you linked to. She is questioning if someone leaked the medical report to help Zimmerman's case. That could be the family or anyone else for whom Zimmerman approved release of his medical records.

The attorney for Martin's parents, Natalie Jackson, is questioning the release of the medical records Tuesday that prosecutors have in the second-degree murder case against Zimmerman.
Jackson said she feels the report was leaked to try and help Zimmerman's defense, but Zimmerman's lawyer denies any involvement.
"Did your office leak that to make Mr. Zimmerman look better?" reporter Bob Kealing asked Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's lawyer.
"Absolutely not," said O'Mara.

It is the reporter that directs the question at O'Mara.

The records (none / 0) (#10)
by RKF on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:22:46 AM EST

I will say the one thing I did not appreciate yesterday when I only read the headlines and not the actual articles is that medical records are from his own physician whom he sought out the following day, and not from any medical attention received that night, which I understood he declined.

Not saying the doctor being untruthful, but for their own liability purposes, they would have an incentive to thoroughly document, or perhaps maybe even over document, any potential injury. Moreover, the standard protocol for any physician in this position is largely rely on self reporting. Given that the nose is cartilage, I'm not sure how severe the "broken nose" is, or the cuts, especially since there was no follow-up care. And it does not appear that he was even concussed, which I would've thought would be unavoidable for almost any level of repetitive pounding of the back of the head against a curb. But I'm not a doctor.

Also legally, I've looked at the cases before, and based on memory (I don't feel like looking at them again), the injuries do not have to be that great to merit reasonable fear self-defense. Obviously, the user of force can fear what may occur.

But as an evidentiary matter, these medical records do not seem to have the same force as I believed yesterday based upon the headlines.

Also, it does make it more likely that Zimmerman's family would be in possession of the records, as they came from his personal physician.

The medical report (2.00 / 1) (#24)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:48:56 PM EST

strongly supports Zimmerman's claim that his head was repeatedly based against the cement sidewalk.

Having your head bashed against cement more than once runs a great risk of your suffering great bodily harm, such as a severe concussion, coma or even death. No Zimmerman hadn't yet suffered those things when he pulled his gun. But could he reasonably believe he ran a big risk of them if he didn't shoot Trayvon and put an end to them? Of course.

Zimmerman should win immunity at an immunity due to self defense hearing. My main question about that is does this judge have the guts to grant it to him, given how politicized and racialized black race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson and Crump and Julison Communications have made it.


Typical (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by RKF on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:51:41 PM EST

My main question about that is does this judge have the guts to grant it to him, given how politicized and racialized black race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson and Crump and Julison Communications have made it.

That's obviously the only issue. Things have gotten to the point where you can't even kill a black teenager without them getting all emotional about it.

Good thing you have framed the issue so fairly


: I agree I have framed it fairly. (none / 0) (#33)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:28:28 PM EST

I've framed it almost exactly the same way Jeralyn has.
It's still possible that some evidence will turn up that indicates Zimmerman started the physical fight. So far I think what little evidence there is on that, mostly circumstantial, are definitely on the side of Trayvon having started it because he likely felt "dissed" due to believing he'd been racially profiled, suspected, and followed. Trayvon was after all much taller and an in shape athlete, he unlike Zimmerman didn't know the police were coming soon and didn't know Zimmerman was armed since his weapon was concealed in a holster inside Zimmerman's waistband. Zimmerman had called the police so they could question and detain Trayvon in appropriate, why would Zimmerman want to do that? According to the long Reuters article he'd never done it before on the many previous occassions when he'd called police about suspicious acting and looking persons in his neighborhood. Instead I think he just wanted to keep, or reacquire sight of Trayvon so he could tell police where he was when they got there.
As well Trayvon had abrasions and bruising on his knuckles according to the coroner, and eye witness John saw him repeatedly heating GZ in the face while GZ repeated yelled for help directly to John. We don't even have any evidence that GZ landed a single punch on Trayvon, and certainly didn't do any damage, until the gun shot.
As well GZ apparently said to police that his gun became visible during the struggle (that's what his father said he'd said) and it wasn't until then that he shot Trayvon.
He may have said some conflicting things about that last, since the prosecutor was trying to get that in at the bail hearing though O'Mara objected and was sustained. But we don't even have to believe the last to make it valid self defense.
But for all the emotion among the black community about it, I think this is a pretty clear case of valid self defense. Well that doesn't make it unclear to me, though it does to many people including many whites.
Of course new evidence might appear and Zimmerman may contradict himself a good lot, we'll have to wait and see on that.

Al Sharpton? He's on trial here? (none / 0) (#30)
by 12345 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:17:05 PM EST

If the jury believes that Zimmerman imagined things out of unwarranted fear -- like suspicious behavior where none existed, home invaders where no were around, conversation that didn't happen (being called "homes" or being told "You're gonna die tonight" or "you got me"), then they might conclude that he was panicked he imagined his gun was being reached for.


: Having his head bashed (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:30:30 PM EST

against the concrete was enough, plenty, to reasonably fear great bodily harm, such as a severe concussion, coma, or even death.
That alone creates valid self defense.

: Legally it doesn't (none / 0) (#58)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:15:26 PM EST

matter why Zimmerman found Trayvon suspicious, or how unwarranted or irrational or even racially profiling (which isn't illegal) that was.
If he started a fight with Trayvon out of racial hatred that would matter, making it a hate crime, but having race and age and dress be some but not the whole factor in why he found his actions suspicious, wouldn't legally. Though it might well matter to esp. black jurors, improperly. I think those having those sorts of prejudices should be found out and excluded for cause during the voir dire process.
The panicked issue goes to whether Zimmerman reasonably on unreasonably only because of irrational panic believed he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm. If unreasonably, then he should be convicted of manslaughter, not second degree murder.

My main question ... (none / 0) (#32)
by Yman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:23:50 PM EST

Zimmerman should win immunity at an immunity due to self defense hearing. My main question about that is does this judge have the guts to grant it to him, given how politicized and racialized black race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson and Crump and Julison Communications have made it.

... is does this judge have the "guts" to apply the evidence to the law.

Well, that .... and how someone keeps a straight face when making these kind of arguments.


If the judge (none / 0) (#57)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:19:27 PM EST

does have the guts to apply the evidence we have so far to the law, the Zimmerman gets immunity from criminal and civil trial at the immunity hearing.


Yeah, I hear you (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by NYShooter on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:42:04 PM EST

it's too bad the judge has to rely on actual evidence instead of delusional speculations put forth by Z's supporters.

While we're at it, if we could get back to reality for a moment, the two small marks on Z's head are more indicative of him simply falling down on an abrasive surface, like a concrete sidewalk, than the grossly imaginative "bashing repeatedly" scenerio Z's supporters would like to foist.


: I've made no delusional (none / 0) (#73)
by Doug1111 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 12:50:04 PM EST

speculations and that's a personal insult founded on nothing.
Every theory I've had of this case I've supported with evidence and in fact weighed the evidence against alternate posibilites advance by the "Zimmerman must be guilty because Trayvon was unarmed" crowd.

No way! (none / 0) (#62)
by Yman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:20:44 PM EST

You really think so?!?

(Pffftttt).

BTW - As if there won't be any additional evidence.

Heh.


Or (none / 0) (#11)
by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:29:29 AM EST

It could be that while in shock after the event, Zimmerman was not feeling much pain and felt he didn't need a lot of medical attention besides what the EMT's gave him that night.

How many NFL players do you see "play through the pain" including concussions?

No "follow-up care" for a broken nose? I don't believe there is much that can be done - it gets set and that's it. It's not like you can put a cast on it. I had a roommate in college who fell off a bike and broke her nose in 4 places - when I went to the hospital to see her, she looked badly beaten up, but her nose did not appear to be broken.

Looks can be deceiving when it comes to injuries.


Broken Nose (none / 0) (#12)
by RKF on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:46:08 AM EST

No doubt. I am not a doctor and out of my element. That is why I qualified the opinion.

I will say that in both of the broken nose incidents I am familiar with - my daughter falling off a bike and my brother playing softball, there was prodigious bleeding, scarily so, which I as a concerned parent (in my daughter's case), was explained to me as typical because of the blood vessels in the nose, and while it had to be stopped (and the head held back), it was explained as being more scary in appearance than anything else (my daughter thought she was dying from the amount of blood; my brother stained the car going to the ER and had to be professionally cleaned).

Yesterday, I assumed the bleeding had been stopped through medical attention that night.

No doctor , and only two data points.


Who started the fight? (none / 0) (#15)
by 12345 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:46:07 AM EST

It would matter to me were I sitting on the jury as to who started the fight not how much damage was inflicted to George Zimmerman during the brief fight -- but maybe the judge would tell me that I could only consider whether once the fight started, it only matters whether George Zimmerman felt he was losing the fight to the point of having his life threatened.

I was really struck yesterday by reading the article in the NY Times about errors made by the Sanford police by these two sentences:

"At 7:09 p.m., Mr. Zimmerman, who was driving to a Target store, made his call to a police dispatcher.

Within eight minutes, Mr. Martin was dead from a gunshot wound to the chest, his body crumpled on a stretch of grass behind a row of town houses."

It is hard to believe that within 8 minutes, George Zimmerman went from pursuer to passive victim, and Trayvon Martin went from kid talking on the phone to surprise attacker reaching to grab a gun.


I think it's easier to believe that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:33:43 PM EST

within 8 minutes GZ went from remote follower/observer, to getting his a$$ kicked by the guy he was following/observing, and TM went from talking on his phone and seeing some ahole following/observing him, to confronting and kicking the a$$ of that ahole.

That said, there are also many other scenarios that are also just as believable.


I posted this in another thread (none / 0) (#20)
by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:39:38 PM EST

But Tracy Martin was originally told:

Sanford police have stopped talking to reporters about the case, and Serino has never spoken publicly about his role in it, but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said: "He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, `Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon `I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up.
"Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, `What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says `I don't have a problem.'
"Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him.
"At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.'" The Martin family has been telling their story as part of a campaign to have Zimmerman arrested. He himself has kept quiet.

So, if true, Trayvon ran away and hid, and then lay in wait for Zimmerman to come around the corner of the building.


You do realize... (none / 0) (#27)
by ks on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:07:45 PM EST

"Sanford police have stopped talking to reporters about the case, and Serino has never spoken publicly about his role in it, but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said: "He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, `Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon `I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up."

That Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher when he said Trayvon approached his vehicle and that supposed conversation is not noted, right?

"At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.'" The Martin family has been telling their story as part of a campaign to have Zimmerman arrested. He himself has kept quiet."

Also, iirc, Trayvon was found on his stomach with his hands under him?


Well then (none / 0) (#36)
by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:31:11 PM EST

Tracy Martin needs to clear that up. Those are his interpretations of what was told to him very soon after the shooting.


Uh huh (none / 0) (#39)
by ks on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:37:25 PM EST

Nice sidestep. Of course he couldn't be accurately recounting what Serino told him. I guess we'll find out when that actual statements come out.


: Seems to me (none / 0) (#42)
by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:47:00 PM EST

Since it doesn't put his son in the very best light, he would be as accurate as possible, or at least, trying to make it as good for his son as possible.
But hey - if you want to doubt his words, be my guest.

Martin needs to ... (none / 0) (#65)
by Yman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:42:17 PM EST

... clear it up?!?

Martin was repeating what the police were telling him was Zimmerman's version of events.


I'm sorry, but I can't get past (none / 0) (#53)
by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:47:00 PM EST

"you got me," which gives me a mental image of a really bad Western, and seems as contrived.

Okay, so...Zimmerman gives a statement or statements to police; since Serino hasn't publicly spoken about the case, do we even know for certain that Serino is the person who took the report and heard it first-hand from Zimmerman? And then Serino relates Zimmerman's story to Tracy Martin, and then Tracy relates it to a reporter.

Ever played "Gossip?" This has the same feel, and I guess we won't know for sure exactly what Zimmerman told the cops until that information is released.

But it will be interesting to see how the actual statement differs from what Tracy Martin related was related to him by Serino, who may or may not have had it related to him by Zimmerman.


: You got me, you shot me, either/or... (none / 0) (#54)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:52:09 PM EST

: I don't know (none / 0) (#55)
by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:54:05 PM EST

But since Tracy Martin is quoted and not paraphrased, and I haven't seen anything further where he objected to his quote, I'd say that's as good as we are going to get until someone is under oath.
But I find it telling that (at least for me) this is the first time I've heard about Martin allegedly getting away, and then hiding and ambushing Zimmerman.

jbindc-- Good stuff. Do you have a link for that? (none / 0) (#45)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:03:20 PM EST

That's the most complete version of how the fight started that I've seen.

It also reconciles DeeDees story and the one we have second hand from Zimmerman's father and brother.


: It's in the Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:25:12 PM EST

From Reuters.

Off topic (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:04:49 PM EST

Leaving a comment from Sheila in the open thread.


Remote follower??? (none / 0) (#31)
by 12345 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:20:29 PM EST

We've yet to hear George Zimmerman's explanation as to why he -- who supposedly knew his way around the block -- was found standing over a dead body in a location that makes it hard to believe he was going back to his truck.


: Why is it hard to believe (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:10:32 PM EST

he was going back to his truck?
He might have gone to the back entrance, looked down the street each way to see if he could see Trayvon (that's what the Wagist site pieced together from Zimmerman's police call and put onto an excellent google earth map of the neighborhood), then gone back to the sidewalk/dog path T intersection, started down it, not seen Trayvon who apparently had gone into hiding, headed back to his truck but was confronted by Trayvon initially from behind before he had gotten quite back to the
T , those words were exchanged,then was knocked to the ground with the fight continuing.
Why isn't that a perfectly plausible scenario.

: Yup, remote follower/observer. (none / 0) (#37)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:31:56 PM EST

Much more accurate.

Crimee, did you not read Jacelyn's (none / 0) (#41)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:45:59 PM EST

recent post on what would be the import if evidence turns up that Zimmerman started the physical fight? I've explained it several times before as well.

If that were the case, Zimmerman would lose the right to stand his ground and still use potentially deadly force if he became in danger of great bodily harm. He'd instead have to do everything he could to flee and call off the fight. However if he reasonably believed that he risked great bodily harm or death, he could still shoot Trayvon.

However if GZ physically started it he'd get no immunity hearing from both criminal and civil prosecution. The case would go to a jury and a civil lawsuit could be brought.


your comments all (none / 0) (#70)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 18, 2012 at 03:09:02 AM EST

presume guilt or speculate as to guilt. If you don't stop suggesting or implying in every comment you write he is guilty, you will be limited to four comments a day per a chatter rule. I have just deleted a comment of your's for stating Mark O'Mara may have lied in an interview with no basis in fact for such an allegation. Please take guilt-mongering elsewhere.


He decline being taken (none / 0) (#47)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:14:51 PM EST

to the hospital that night. The EMT's did treat him at the scene however. They obviously cleaned up his wounds, we see from the station house videos.


Btw, about the "skinned knuckles" meme (none / 0) (#16)
by ks on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:09:59 PM EST

"Florida teenager Trayvon Martin died from a single gunshot wound to the chest fired from "intermediate range," according to an autopsy report reviewed Wednesday by NBC News.

The official report, prepared by the medical examiner in Volusia County, Fla., also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury - a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size - on his left ring finger below the knuckle.

I guess we can chalk that up as another media error, huh?

Kuckles often don't get (2.00 / 1) (#59)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:20:38 PM EST

abrasions from punching someone, though they do usually get bruised if you punch someone hard in a bony area like the head.

The fact that Trayvon had both abrasions and bruising to his knuckles pretty much proved he'd recently been in a fight not long before the coroner did his work. Yeah he could have punched out a wall in frustration or anger, but how likely is that right before he gets shot?


Where do you get ... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Yman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:59:48 PM EST

... abrasions and bruising to Martin's knuckles?

It's been commonly said lately (none / 0) (#75)
by Doug1111 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:55:57 PM EST

in the media that there was bruising, but that does seem to be mistaken.

Thinking about it, bruises usually take a few hours to develop, and are due to small internal swelling/bleeding, which probably requires blood pressure. So I'd guess they don't develop after death.


"Commonly said"? (none / 0) (#76)
by Yman on Fri May 18, 2012 at 04:45:48 PM EST

Seriously? That's the standard we're using even now that the autopsy report has been released and we know there was one, small abrasion and no bruising? "It's been commonly said lately in the media" (i.e. wagist, conservativetreehouse, etc., etc.)

I do like the new explanation for why there is (in fact) no bruising. So there was bruising because it's "been said lately" - or no bruising, but lack of bruising doesn't mean anything (lose-lose), and the abrasions are (in fact) one, small (1/4 in.) abrasion on one knuckle.

Heh.

BTW - Bruises can and do occur from injuries immediately before death and even shortly after death.


Personal attack after person attack from you. (none / 0) (#77)
by Doug1111 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:18:19 PM EST

I hadn't read the autopsy report when I said bruising. I had scanned some news reports from google news that said they had.

Some time after you challenged my saying bruising I did read the autopsy reports, one of which is rather long.

But yeah the level of reporting by most of the media on this story has been abysmal, except for Reuters actually. Fox has been much more balance and also kept closer to the know facts as opposed to Crump and Julison Communications spin as well.


: "Personal attack"? (none / 0) (#80)
by Yman on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:28:59 PM EST

What are you talking about?
Pointing out the fact that you're misstating facts and pushing discredited memes is a "personal attack"?
You were the one challenging ks's post - citing an actual news report of the autopsy results - in which it was noted that there was only one, small (no more than 1/4 in.) abrasion on one knuckle. You then cited the (imaginary) abrasions and bruises on his knuckles, saying they "pretty much proved he'd recently been in a fight not long before the coroner did his work". Suddenly, now that the that's been demonstrated to be false, it's no longer important. Funny how that works.
My point is you complain incessantly about false information from the media when you don't like the information, but push false information from "Google News" (despite the provided report from the autopsy) when you happen to like that information.
BTW - I checked "Google News". The summaries claiming bruises, etc. are from right-wing blogs, not actual news sources (wnd, the blaze, possecomitatus, etc.).
Just a coincidence, I guess.

You know the last how? (none / 0) (#78)
by Doug1111 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:21:56 PM EST

Also maybe in some causes of death blood pressure might remain for a while after death, don't know. Here Trayvon was shot through the heart as well as lung and lost 2.3 liters of blood immediately. The blows that ordinarily might cause bruising if Trayvon hadn't died also didn't occur until a minute to seconds before he was shot it seems.


: From personal experience (none / 0) (#81)
by Yman on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:30:46 PM EST

Plus, Google is your friend.

Also what are you trying to prove? (none / 0) (#79)
by Doug1111 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 05:26:18 PM EST

It's pretty much beyond doubt at this point that Trayvon punched Zimmerman repeatedly. Eye witness John who was the closes saw it happening with Trayvon pinning GZ to the ground. No other witness has credibly contradicted that. GZ's injuries and his wet and grass cutting strew back corroborate it. The coroner's report does as well, including the 1 to 18 inch "intermediate range" of the shot distance. The laceration on his knuckle does as well.


: And, if Zimmerman (none / 0) (#82)
by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:44:05 PM EST

instigated the fight, what should Trayvon have done?

"Intermediate range" (none / 0) (#26)
by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:05:50 PM EST

in the coroners report turns out to mean between one and 18 inches away from the wound. Any more than 18 inches is termed distant by coroners.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/17/autopsy-reportedly-shows-trayvon-martin-died-from-single-gunsho t-wound-fired-at/

This strongly corroborates Zimmerman's story of they're still being in a struggle when he shot Trayvon.

You don't "hunt someone down like a rabid dog" in the infamous words of a black Representative from Florida, but then wait until you're 18 inches away to pull the trigger.

: A little friendly advice: (none / 0) (#61)
by NYShooter on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:48:34 PM EST

Jeralyn has repeatedly requested that people who want to link to outside sources use the link buttons on top of the comments box. If you need help in how to do this almost anyone here will be glad to assist you.
Thank you

the reports have been released (none / 0) (#71)
by Jeralyn on Fri May 18, 2012 at 03:12:23 AM EST

and there's no such statement in the documents. Unless you find it in an audio, please stop referring to it. It's not factual or supported.