George Zimmerman's Injuries #1

[LambChop]

So the police WROTE that he had blood on his nose and the back of his head, and there is a PICTURE of the injury, but because you don't have VERIFICATION that the picture is TIMESTAMPED, you don't believe the police report either? Huh?

I think the problem with the picture is that at 7:19 when this picture was supposed to have been taken Officer Smith had already reported that he had secured GZ's gun and that he was cuffed and in custody. At 7:19 the second officer was just arriving and preparing to evaluate and give CPR to TM. That's the problem with the picture. One: no one should have been permitted anywhere near the scene once the officer arrived. The officer would have no way of telling if someone would interfer with the crime scene and that is why they try to secure it right away. Two: GZ appears to be uncuffed in this picture. We still have not heard who the person was that took this picture. Why is it such a big secret when there are some valid questions regarding GZ not being in cuffs in this picture at 7:19 when we all know it was reported by the officer that GZ was already cuffed.

Just a lot of unanswered questions for people to want to swallow all in one gulp. It only takes one inconsistencies for people to be on guard about what really might have happened. The story should have been consistent. It should have sounded like the truth when GZ told it to the homocide detective and we know he did not believe GZ. We know now after an investigation that there were inconsistencies, enough to charge him with 2nd degree murder when most of us believed he should have been charged with manslaughter. That's a big leap. jmo

 

[katydid23]

GZ lies and that has been proven at the bond hearing. GZ tells a story and some take it as fact. But he is the only one here to tell the story and he certainly has a vested interest in the story being believed.

But, really, what has this man done to warrant the blind faith that some people have in him or his word?

BBM

I will tell you why I am defending GZ so far. I grew up with a defense attorney for a father. And I saw clearly how the public could gang up on someone because of bad publicity, and then take every single thing about that person's life and use it against them, twisting it and distorting it even. It bothers me to this day.

I have said since day one, that I thought GZ deserved to be arrested on the first night and was probably guilty of manslaughter. [ and even though I did say that many times, one poster made a rather snide comment that someone should go back and check if I was lying about that or not. Many thanked her post, so I went back and found my early posts saying that, and posted them. But nobody responded or acknowledged that fact that I was being honest about that.] Which, imo, is an example of how this public piling on works.

But I have seen with my own eyes, defendants who have been treated by the public with great scorn, even unfairly so. And so I have tried like crazy to get people not to jump to the worst conclusions. Like when it began to spread like wildfire that he had shot TM in the back. Or the 'rumor' that O'Mara publicly exposed the girlfriends name on live television at the bond hearing. I don't think it is good for our country right now for people to paint this stupid vigilante with a racist brush. Why help Rev Al create his chosen scenario, that this watchman was a white racist out to kill an innocent child?

Because that is NOT how it happened, imo. And it is unfair to try and paint it like that. GZ was WRONG and deserves to pay the price for his foolish decisions. But for this forum to try and make him out to be someone who called 911 just so he could plan a cold blooded murder? That is not right, imo.

 

[Emeralgem]

So the police WROTE that he had blood on his nose and the back of his head, and there is a PICTURE of the injury, but because you don't have VERIFICATION that the picture is TIMESTAMPED, you don't believe the police report either? Huh?

Excuse me but blood on his nose does not necessarily mean it was his blood.. I saw the video of him when he was taken into the police station about 30 minutes after he had shot Trayvon and there wasn't even a bandaid on his head, nor was there any blood on him to be seen..... And at this stage of the game I don't think any of us can trust the SFP to produce anything that we could ever possibly count on as being reliable or truthful... Their ONLY concern at this time is to save their rear ends...JMHO

 

[LinasK]

So the police WROTE that he had blood on his nose and the back of his head, and there is a PICTURE of the injury, but because you don't have VERIFICATION that the picture is TIMESTAMPED, you don't believe the police report either? Huh?

That picture is worthless without knowing who took it and when. It could easily have been photoshopped. If George's injuries were so severe, why weren't they documented in detail instead of just releasing him??? According to his brother, George was "one hit away from diapers and being spoon-fed for life". That equals paralysis, none of which George has. George has proven himself to be a liar, and has good motive to lie in this situation, so I believe he was capable of self-inflicting those injuries or getting the photo photoshopped.
Also, where's the photos of his supposedly broken nose???

 

[zenreaper]

That picture is worthless without knowing who took it and when. It could easily have been photoshopped. If George's injuries were so severe, why weren't they documented in detail instead of just releasing him??? According to his brother, George was "one hit away from diapers and being spoon-fed for life". That equals paralysis, none of which George has. George has proven himself to be a liar, and has good motive to lie in this situation, so I believe he was capable of self-inflicting those injuries or getting the photo photoshopped.
Also, where's the photos of his supposedly broken nose???

His brother was exagerating, probably in the face of the OVERWHELMING public outcry that his brother was some kind of racist murderer roaming the neighborhood looking to shoot a black kid. And so what if the injurues were NOT that severe? Suppose TM had only hit his head against the sidewalk once or twice? How long does an individual have to be beat on before they respond with force to defend themselves?

As for him injuring himself or photoshopping the picture, you have to be REALISTIC. And amazingly enough, he photoshpped the picture and injured himself in EXACTLY the way the police wrote it up...AMAZING. Come on, aren't you going a bit FAR with this?

 

[LinasK]

His brother was exagerating, probably in the face of the OVERWHELMING public outcry that his brother was some kind of racist murderer roaming the neighborhood looking to shoot a black kid. And so what if the injurues were NOT that severe? Suppose TM had only hit his head against the sidewalk once or twice? How long does an individual have to be beat on before they respond with force to defend themselves?

As for him injuring himself or photoshopping the picture, you have to be REALISTIC. And amazingly enough, he photoshpped the picture and injured himself in EXACTLY the way the police wrote it up...AMAZING. Come on, aren't you going a bit FAR with this?

Nope because I don't believe George was beaten at all. :snooty:The Medical Examiner said that there were no bruises whatsoever on Trayvon's knuckles. I think George was in CYA mode for a shooting he did, then it turned out Trayvon wasn't the criminal he thought he was! And for the record, even though I know this is the wrong forum, I do believe George Zimmerman is racist against blacks, IMO!

 

[Lovelymountains]

In a recent well known case in Florida, the accused's parents sold photos of the victim to a major network for, it is reported, $250,000. So it would appear there is a considerable pay-off to anyone who can produce a photo which shows a key element of a crime, in this case a photo of the so-called injuries of one George Zimmerman. While protesting that they don't pay for interviews, networks sure as heck do pay for "Licensing" photos. Am I wrong in understanding that this photo was first released to the public by the ABC network? Who took this picture? Was it sold to ABC? When was it taken? Is it even a photo of George Zimmerman? While I am certainly not contending that the photo is a fake, why is the blood not diluted by the rain? What is that straight mark on the bald head and could it have been made by a concrete sidewalk? And the pattern of the "Blood" in a downward path: wouldn't it be less neat if it were the result of having the back of his head repeatedly forced into a sidewalk? And it appears to me that the pattern of baldness in the photo doesn't match that shown in the SPD's surveillance video. And the $200,000 plus suddenly appearing in GZ's PayPal account? I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but if it walks like a duck............IMO, of course.

 

[vlpate]

In a recent well known case in Florida, the accused's parents sold photos of the victim to a major network for, it is reported, $250,000. So it would appear there is a considerable pay-off to anyone who can produce a photo which shows a key element of a crime, in this case a photo of the so-called injuries of one George Zimmerman. While protesting that they don't pay for interviews, networks sure as heck do pay for "Licensing" photos. Am I wrong in understanding that this photo was first released to the public by the ABC network? Who took this picture? Was it sold to ABC? When was it taken? Is it even a photo of George Zimmerman? While I am certainly not contending that the photo is a fake, why is the blood not diluted by the rain? What is that straight mark on the bald head and could it have been made by a concrete sidewalk? And the pattern of the "Blood" in a downward path: wouldn't it be less neat if it were the result of having the back of his head repeatedly forced into a sidewalk? And it appears to me that the pattern of baldness in the photo doesn't match that shown in the SPD's surveillance video. And the $200,000 plus suddenly appearing in GZ's PayPal account? I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but if it walks like a duck............IMO, of course.

I think a lot of that $200,000 came from the pictures of GZ when he was younger, I forget the name of the article, but it came out within days of the bond hearing. Casey Anthony received about that much. If you look at many of the Trayvon pictures, the ABC logo is on them - as well as one of Trayvon's relatives. IMO, "exclusives" do not come free. ABC has made a mint in advertising revenue off of this story, $200,000 is a pittance to them.

Matt Guttman is the king of exclusives, for some reason.

JMO

 

[zenreaper]

Nope because I don't believe George was beaten at all. :snooty:The Medical Examiner said that there were no bruises whatsoever on Trayvon's knuckles. I think George was in CYA mode for a shooting he did, then it turned out Trayvon wasn't the criminal he thought he was! And for the record, even though I know this is the wrong forum, I do believe George Zimmerman is racist against blacks, IMO!

Wait a minute, the police wrote up the report not long after the shooting occured. At that point, GZ had no reason to NOT believe TM wasn't the "criminal he thought he was". Matter of fact, GZ knew NOTHING about TM other than the fact that he had shot him. So why would he then go to the trouble of injuring himself to cover for it? That makes NO sense. As for the last part, I just don't know what to say about that. You talk about no coming to a conclusion without evidence, then you make a blantant accusation about a person's CORE belief staructure, with no evidence.

And lets be honest, suppose a black person attacks a white supremecist. Does the white supremecist deserve any less protection under the law? Are white people ALLOWED to attack black racists? Of course not.

 

[AngelWings444]

I think a lot of that $200,000 came from the pictures of GZ when he was younger, I forget the name of the article, but it came out within days of the bond hearing. Casey Anthony received about that much. If you look at many of the Trayvon pictures, the ABC logo is on them - as well as one of Trayvon's relatives. IMO, "exclusives" do not come free. ABC has made a mint in advertising revenue off of this story, $200,000 is a pittance to them.

Matt Guttman is the king of exclusives, for some reason.

JMO

The bond hearing was 4/20/2012, the "bloody head picture" was released 4/20/2012. Same day. :waitasec: I think it was the "bloody head picture" that ABC paid a fortune to obtain, not the young GZ pics. JMO

The problem I have with the "bloody head picture" is, it's the back of his head, no pics of his face, broken nose etc..it's always looked so hinky to me. But, that is JMO.

 

[vlpate]

Nope because I don't believe George was beaten at all. :snooty:The Medical Examiner said that there were no bruises whatsoever on Trayvon's knuckles. I think George was in CYA mode for a shooting he did, then it turned out Trayvon wasn't the criminal he thought he was! And for the record, even though I know this is the wrong forum, I do believe George Zimmerman is racist against blacks, IMO!

He said there were no marks on him at all, IIRC.

 

[suzihawk]

He said there were no marks on him at all, IIRC.

Except for the gunshot wound inflicted by a hollow point bullet.

 

[vlpate]

The bond hearing was 4/20/2012, the "bloody head picture" was released 4/20/2012. Same day. :waitasec: I think it was the "bloody head picture" that ABC paid a fortune to obtain, not the young GZ pics. JMO

The problem I have with the "bloody head picture" is, it's the back of his head, no pics of his face, broken nose etc..it's always looked so hinky to me. But, that is JMO.

Prelude to a Shooting - April 25. I doubt the head picture belonged to Zimmerman or his family. I know it's been insinuated that Taaffe may have taken it, but I don't believe GZ would have been asking other people to call his wife if Taaffe (sp?), was there. Quite possible the money, or part of it, from the head shot was donated.

 

[zenreaper]

He said there were no marks on him at all, IIRC.

Why would there be? Per GZ, he only HIT him once, then was slamming his head on the ground. Holding a head and slamming it would not create a bruise, and hitting someone once and DYING soon thereafter will not necessarily cause a bruise to form.

 

[vlpate]

Except for the gunshot wound inflicted by a hollow point bullet.

Did he say that? I don't recall, that would be stating the obvious.

 

[AngelWings444]

Prelude to a Shooting - April 25. I doubt the head picture belonged to Zimmerman or his family. I know it's been insinuated that Taaffe may have taken it, but I don't believe GZ would have been asking other people to call his wife if Taaffe (sp?), was there. Quite possible the money, or part of it, from the head shot was donated.

:waitasec: I'm confused. So, you think if there was $$ received from the "bloody head picture", it was donated? To whom? The defense fund?

I believe GZ (or someone on his behalf) received $ from the bloody head shot and the pictures from his youth. There were only 54 donors to the website. I think ABC was one of the huge "donors." :moo:

 

[vlpate]

I think the problem with the picture is that at 7:19 when this picture was supposed to have been taken Officer Smith had already reported that he had secured GZ's gun and that he was cuffed and in custody. At 7:19 the second officer was just arriving and preparing to evaluate and give CPR to TM. That's the problem with the picture. One: no one should have been permitted anywhere near the scene once the officer arrived. The officer would have no way of telling if someone would interfer with the crime scene and that is why they try to secure it right away. Two: GZ appears to be uncuffed in this picture. We still have not heard who the person was that took this picture. Why is it such a big secret when there are some valid questions regarding GZ not being in cuffs in this picture at 7:19 when we all know it was reported by the officer that GZ was already cuffed.

Just a lot of unanswered questions for people to want to swallow all in one gulp. It only takes one inconsistencies for people to be on guard about what really might have happened. The story should have been consistent. It should have sounded like the truth when GZ told it to the homocide detective and we know he did not believe GZ. We know now after an investigation that there were inconsistencies, enough to charge him with 2nd degree murder when most of us believed he should have been charged with manslaughter. That's a big leap. jmo

I've asked before, to no avail unless I missed it, do you happen to know where the time-stamped picture can be found? TIA

 

[vlpate]

:waitasec: I'm confused. So, you think if there was $$ received from the "bloody head picture", it was donated? To whom? The defense fund?

I believe GZ (or someone on his behalf) received $ from the bloody head shot and the pictures from his youth. There were only 54 donors to the website. I think ABC was one of the huge "donors." :moo:

No, I think the picture used in Prelude to a Shooting were paid for by Reuters. Maybe on the head shot, I don't know.

Yes, donated to the defense fund.....

 

[AngelWings444]

Prelude to a Shooting - April 25. I doubt the head picture belonged to Zimmerman or his family. I know it's been insinuated that Taaffe may have taken it, but I don't believe GZ would have been asking other people to call his wife if Taaffe (sp?), was there. Quite possible the money, or part of it, from the head shot was donated.

The bond hearing and the release of the "bloody head picture" were on same date, April 20, 2012.

The article you reference, "Prelude to a Shooting" was April 25, 2012.

I believe the $$ from ABC, came from the "bloody head picture" released on 4/20, not from article you reference. JMO

Can't wait to see the accounting records from the donation site for GZ.

 

[vlpate]

Why would there be? Per GZ, he only HIT him once, then was slamming his head on the ground. Holding a head and slamming it would not create a bruise, and hitting someone once and DYING soon thereafter will not necessarily cause a bruise to form.

I would think there would have been defensive wounds if TM was trying to get away, trying to defend himself from GZ. Some theorize GZ was holding onto TM, on top of him - IMO, there'd be something.