17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #18

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
grandmaj said:
Generally you don't see crime scene photos. You either go to the ME's office and identify in person, or they take a sterile picture of the body in the morgue. That wasn't this department's best procedural move IMO.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think forcing next of kin to view the corpse of a loved one is the cruelest method of all. But maybe that's just me.

But back to the photos. How many were Tracy Martin shown? Because there are mentions above of his being shown a picture of his son laying face down in the grass. (And BTW, how could anyone identify anyone reliably from such a photo?)

And there are also references to Trayvon's tear-stained (or rain-splattered) cheek. I don't believe you could see the kid's face if he was lying face down.

So were multiple photos shown to Mr. Martin? (That seems excessive.)

Or did Trayvon die front down, but with his face to one side, revealing his profile? (If this is the case, then I understand the complaint about showing his father this picture.)
 
JeannaT said:
If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes he can go back in and add stuff as long as he puts the date he added it. It is that simple.

These are documents that will be used in court and someone will have to swear to them to be an accurate record. Part of that important record is the date it was made.
 
Nova said:
Frankly, I think forcing next of kin to view the corpse of a loved one is the cruelest method of all. But maybe that's just me.

But back to the photos. How many were Tracy Martin shown? Because there are mentions above of his being shown a picture of his son laying face down in the grass. (And BTW, how could anyone identify anyone reliably from such a photo?)

And there are also references to Trayvon's tear-stained (or rain-splattered) cheek. I don't believe you could see the kid's face if he was lying face down.

So were multiple photos shown to Mr. Martin? (That seems excessive.)

Or did Trayvon die front down, but with his face to one side, revealing his profile? (If this is the case, then I understand the complaint about showing his father this picture.)
Click to expand...

Did he ask, I wonder? Did he ask to view the photos taken at the scene? I can't imagine a cop being cruel enough to have a dad look at those photos if they hadn't asked to be allowed to.
 
katydid23 said:
However GZ was interviewed on tape three times with LE that night. So it doesn't really matter what his father or brother or neighbor say. The only story that will matter during the trial will be his initial version, imo.
Click to expand...
In one way you are right - the initial story is the only one that should matter.

However, in general defense attorneys are notorious for embellishing/embroidering in order to set up a defense.

Or Zimmerman could say "I had a head injury and didn't know what I was saying that night" . . . yadda . . . yadda . . . yadda . . .

At the least, a defense attorney might coach a defendent to use different language than he used in the beginning in order to spin things in a more favorable light, especially with the timeline. They might even encourage other family members to tell different versions. That helps to pollute the future jury pool and confuse this issues. :twocents:

I'm not saying any of that has actually happened, but once someone has lawyered up you are probably not going to go back to the original version until a trial starts. You are going to hear all kinds of things that should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
JeannaT said:
Did he ask, I wonder? Did he ask to view the photos taken at the scene? I can't imagine a cop being cruel enough to have a dad look at those photos if they hadn't asked to be allowed to.
Click to expand...

In fairness, the officer may not have meant to be cruel. He may have meant to end the father's uncertainty, calculating that viewing an unfortunate photo was less cruel than making Tracy Martin wait until a formal viewing could be arranged at the morgue.

If it were I, I'd rather see the photo than wait another hour without knowing for sure. It's not as if part of the child's head were blown off.
 
Nova said:
Frankly, I think forcing next of kin to view the corpse of a loved one is the cruelest method of all. But maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...

Corpses have been misidentified by pictures before, so they don't take any chances with that. Death is cruel in general - I don't see much difference between showing someone a picture of their dead relative and showing them the actual person, except the reality might be easier to accept in the morgue. If someone is dead, the body is going to be viewed at the funeral anyway.

But back to the photos. How many were Tracy Martin shown? Because there are mentions above of his being shown a picture of his son laying face down in the grass. (And BTW, how could anyone identify anyone reliably from such a photo?)
Click to expand...
They can't, and hence the morgue visit. The horrible thing for Mr. Martin was probably realizing with horror that Trayvon died so close to the house in a place where he expected to be safe. It's a nightmare. :(
 
JeannaT said:
In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact and doesn't affect or influence the medical treatment. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. You can't add something that would be very pertinent - for example, another drug the patient was on when receiving a medication. You'd have to note when that info was added, after the initial creation of the report. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form. Is that not true of a police report? I would think that would be about the same as adding a "case number" on the form after the case is actually opened. You can do that, can't you, without redating the police report?
Click to expand...

In a medical report, if a physician or nurse has anything to add to it, it's covered in a separate report with the word ADDENDUM added. HIPPA and JCAHO ( Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) have VERY SPECIFIC RULES regarding any changes to a medical report and if either the government (representing HIPPA) or an auditor for JCAHO comes to your hospital to review your records on a particular patient and they saw a line crossed through something that might not be correct, that hospital would be in violation and a severe penalty could be rendered. If a physician has a report that he realizes he needs to be changed, he then dictates that report with the corrections that he wants made and again it is labeled with ADDENDUM at the top.

(Let me add that while Isabelle is a nurse and is on the floor where the patient's are seen, I am the ones behind the scenes transcribing these notes from the doctor's).


~jmo~
 
I think both sides are muddying up the waters a bit. One of the Martin attorneys is still publicly complaining that TM was ' laying in the morgue as a John Doe for three days.'

That makes LE sound very cold and unfeeling. And yet, we also hear that they went to the father with pictures early the next morning. [ which is also described as cruel.] So why is the attorney publicly blasting them with the 3 day in the morgue complaint if he was actually identified on the morning after ?
 
atthelake said:
Thanks Beach - And if you guys shut down for the holiday, ok by me as you folks have been overworked I'm sure.

Right now, this is on the 18th thread and I can't keep up with facts due to so many posts. I know that there is one thread that is ONLY for posting of news, and without comments. Can you let us all know if/when you separate out topical threads for this so those that want to truly sleuth on a subject can have a place to go to post and to have as a reference for subjects at a later time. I've wanted to look for a specific item, and did indeed try to search but couldn't find in this morass of postings in the 18 threads so far.

Thanks for all you mods do! Take the weekend off!
Click to expand...

I want to address this here because I have had several PMs asking me about this, but I haven't had a chance to respond. I apologize for that, but my inbox is exploding and I do the best I can just trying to keep up. So, if you have PM'd me and I haven't replied, I sincerely apologize.


While I totally agree that we need a forum where we can separate the topics and make info easier to find, we are not even considering it at this time. At all times we have 3-4 mods on this thread to keep it from exploding into it's own online riot. lol

This is really up to you guys. When we see that posters can discuss these emotional topics in a calm, civil manner and practice a LARGE dose of tolerance toward each other, we will make it a forum. Right now, the temprament in here is such that there is simply no way we can mod multiple a bunch of hot, volatile topical threads. Simply put, it is all we can do to maintain peace on these single discussion threads.

Those of you who were around - think of the Anthony forum immediately post-verdict. It simply won't work at this time.

If things calm down, we would love to make it a forum. Right now we just can't do that. Hopefully, soon. I have faith in your guys. :)
 
ThoughtFox said:
In one way you are right - the initial story is the only one that should matter.

However, in general defense attorneys are notorious for embellishing/embroidering in order to set up a defense.

Or Zimmerman could say "I had a head injury and didn't know what I was saying that night" . . . yadda . . . yadda . . . yadda . . .

At the least, a defense attorney might coach a defendent to use different language than he used in the beginning in order to spin things in a more favorable light, especially with the timeline. They might even encourage other family members to tell different versions. That helps to pollute the future jury pool and confuse this issues. :twocents:

I'm not saying any of that has actually happened, but once someone has lawyered up you are probably not going to go back to the original version until a trial starts. You are going to hear all kinds of things that should be taken with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are unethical defense attorneys just as there are unethical DAs. But we should be clear that a defense attorney is also an officer of the court and cannot ethically coach anyone to lie.

What he or she CAN do is point out that certain ways of presenting the truth may be problematic. "I blew that sucker away," for example, may cause problems in the minds of the public and jury that "I pulled the trigger to save my life" will not, even though both may be true statements.

And, yes, a defense attorney may test the waters, so to speak, by trying out different ways of expressing an argument s/he believes to be true. I agree with those who believe "shaken baby syndrome" will fail the test: it's too apt to provoke smirking and even laughter.
 
ThoughtFox said:
Corpses have been misidentified by pictures before, so they don't take any chances with that. Death is cruel in general - I don't see much difference between showing someone a picture of their dead relative and showing them the actual person, except the reality might be easier to accept in the morgue. If someone is dead, the body is going to be viewed at the funeral anyway....
Click to expand...

Thank you, TF. Good point.

They can't, and hence the morgue visit. The horrible thing for Mr. Martin was probably realizing with horror that Trayvon died so close to the house in a place where he expected to be safe. It's a nightmare. :(
Click to expand...

Does this mean the officer showed Mr. Martin a photo of his son face down in the grass? This seems really unnecessary to me. Appalling, even.
 
JeannaT said:
I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.
Click to expand...

Whenever the Officers on the scene from the SPD got all the blanks on the report filled in, I think they got it mostly right.

I think this is right:

TMVictim-1.png


I think this is right:

TMSuspect-1.png


I'm convinced this one is mostly right as well:

TMPoliceReport2-1.png
 
Peliman said:
I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html
Click to expand...

What other defense does he need beside what is bolded :waitasec:
 
Nova said:
Frankly, I think forcing next of kin to view the corpse of a loved one is the cruelest method of all. But maybe that's just me.

But back to the photos. How many were Tracy Martin shown? Because there are mentions above of his being shown a picture of his son laying face down in the grass. (And BTW, how could anyone identify anyone reliably from such a photo?)

And there are also references to Trayvon's tear-stained (or rain-splattered) cheek. I don't believe you could see the kid's face if he was lying face down.

So were multiple photos shown to Mr. Martin? (That seems excessive.)

Or did Trayvon die front down, but with his face to one side, revealing his profile? (If this is the case, then I understand the complaint about showing his father this picture.)
Click to expand...

I don't know personally about what pictures were shown. Only what I am reading.

Procedurally you would not have to go to the morgue if things are handled delicately. . Say the officer had a picture of Trayvon(not a gory crime scene photo) and he showed it to Trayvon's father. Trayvon's father believed it was his son. So now the choices are generally to get dental records or get finger print records if there are any, and that is the way the ME would confirm the identification.

Very few cases really require the family to go to the ME's office. That is in the movies. I work with the ME's office on many cases. It is done by pictures and dental records to confirm or finger prints. I"ve never had a family tell me LE showed them crime scene pictures.
 
Adrienne37 said:
Well, I guess we can drop the speculation about whether or not Trayvon was at the 7-11 on the night of his murder...

Georgia Students Gather In Sanford For Trayvon Martin


A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.
An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html#ixzz1rHyJyZmJ
Click to expand...

BBM. Tks for that post. That also proves that Tray paid for it:maddening:
Not that I ever doubted that anyway.
 
Elley Mae said:
What other defense does he need beside what is bolded :waitasec:
Click to expand...

None that I'm aware of but since information has been leaked slowly and I don't know the total content of witness statements or what the investigation or forensics reveal, I'm not willing to commit to his innocence yet either.

So far this case has been blown way out of proportion by reckless news reporting and conclusion jumping. JMO
 
Nova said:
'm sure there are unethical defense attorneys just as there are unethical DAs. But we should be clear that a defense attorney is also an officer of the court and cannot ethically coach anyone to lie.

What he or she CAN do is point out that certain ways of presenting the truth may be problematic. "I blew that sucker away," for example, may cause problems in the minds of the public and jury that "I pulled the trigger to save my life" will not, even though both may be true statements.
Click to expand...

I never said Zimmerman's attorney would coach him to lie. Besides, the attorney isn't there to judge his story one way or another, but to help him put forth the most appealing version of the story (if that's possible).

I said the att. might teach him to spin something differently from the original story, so I think we agree on that point.

Nova said:
Does this mean the officer showed Mr. Martin a photo of his son face down in the grass? This seems really unnecessary to me. Appalling, even.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. None of us have actually seen the crime scene photos, have we?
 
Peliman said:
None that I'm aware of but since information has been leaked slowly and I don't know the total content of witness statements or what the investigation or forensics reveal, I'm not willing to commit to his innocence yet either.

So far this case has been blown way out of proportion by reckless news reporting and conclusion jumping. JMO
Click to expand...

Exactly, it is difficult to read "between the lines" sometimes. I'm thinking that if there is an arrest of GZ it will be because he was told by dispatch to not follow. Not sure he will face murder. still pondering
 
JeannaT said:
Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.
Click to expand...

I dona't know Jeanna. Walking around is not a crime. Let me give you an example. When I go back east to visit with my daughter and grands, I often go outside and sit on a wall or walk down the street with the phone talking to my husband or work back home.

I'm an empty nester and while I enjoy every second of being with my grands, the noise and confusion and running etc., tends to wear on me after a while. My home is very quiet. So I take a nice long walk, sneak a cigg and just walk about.

Even though I'm a stranger in the neighborhood I've never been stopped or followed in the rain, or even the snow doing this.

Maybe Trayvon in that he was staying not in his own home, but visiting just felt isolated and wanted to talk to his girl on the phone and that is really all he was doing. Walking about trying to find some space away from the people he was staying with. I really can understand that. Because I'm not the type to stay in anyone else's house but my own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 128 more.
Total: 3,494 (members: 129, guests: 3,365)

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
3,365
Total visitors
3,494
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,279
Messages
17,966,544
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top