The prosecutor has never sought information on Zimmerman’s injuries

Michael D. writes:

Listening to the Zimmerman bail hearing yesterday, I was stunned to hear the “investigator” admit he never asked for medical records supporting Zimmerman’s assertion that Martin broke his nose. For weeks I’ve been reading everything I can find on this case in order to discover confirmation of the broken nose, as it has a number of potential implications.

Martin had a longer reach than Zimmerman, and was most likely a good deal quicker than Zimmerman; both because of fast-twitch muscle fiber differences by race, and because a 17 year old who can play high school football at 6’2” and a mere 160 pounds must exploit quickness rather than strength as his competitive edge. Zimmerman claims Martin confronted him and initiated the violence. A favorite target of a sucker puncher is the bridge of the nose in order to break it. If followed through with a “bull rush” or even another less effective punch to Zimmerman’s bloodied lips, the backwards momentum could have easily flat backed Zimmerman on the concrete, where and when the head banging could commence. Not only that, a broken nose could have easily flooded Zimmerman’s nasal and sinus cavities with blood, especially as he was on his back. This most likely would have changed the pitch and tone of his voice, as anyone who has had a cold or pinched his nose while talking as a child can attest. Reading the conclusions of the “expert audio analysts,” I was surprised this possibility was never even mentioned.

Between the state not having the pictures ABC News obtained, and not having asked for Zimmerman’s medical records, I have to suspect there were things the state did not wish to know, for reasons of later invoking plausible deniability. As bad as the prosecution’s case smelled before yesterday, it smells far worse today.

- end of initial entry -

LA to Michael D. :
Staggering. I haven’t watched any of this on TV. I guess I need to catch up. Where would I be able to see this? Youtube? Which station did you see (hear) it on,

Michael D. replies:

I watched it on both CNN and MSNBC, and recorded both to my TiVo. Each of them intermittently cut away for two minutes or so at differing times, which is why I simultaneously watched both (dual tuners in my TiVo) in order not to miss anything during their random breaks.

I have not searched for this admission on YouTube, but will do so later today.

O’Mara was great, he asked if the investigator had seen them, then if he had ever asked for them, then asked if he would like to see them (waving a copy if his left hand), only to pull them back while remarking “I’ll give them to the state; that’s the appropriate way to do this.”

Jonathan W. writes:

In the last few days, I’ve heard the scenario raised as a possibility that Zimmerman’s head injuries occurred from hitting his head on the ground after being punched, rather than from his head being banged against the ground by Martin. But it seems that that would be easy to determine. If Zimmerman fell after being punched, and then fired at Martin from the ground, the shot would be from several feet away at least, whereas if he fired during a struggle, the shot would be point blank. Have the autopsy and ballistic reports been made public yet? I haven’t seen anything in the news about it, but to me, that’s a critical part of the case.

Michael D. replies to LA:

What looks to be the full hearing can be found here on YouTube. The admission that stunned me starts at around 27:30 into that clip, but nearly all of it is well worth watching.

Randy writes:

Reading the comments at the post is the first time I realized that Martin was 6’ 2” and played football. It would seem he was not tall and skinny like Obama but much larger like OJ Simpson. The pictures I previously saw of Martin gave the impression he was much smaller (was that just coincidental?). If it is true Martin was very large, it would provide further evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin in fear of his life. Also, it would not seem logical that Zimmerman would pursue and pick a fight with Martin who was significantly larger.

There are so many ways Romney could use this incident to provide a stark contrast between himself and Obama. He could state the simple truth that blacks using lynching style tactics today is no more justified today than it was 200 years ago. But we know he won’t.

Matt writes:

The blog is my go-to place for all things Martin/Zimmerman (and they are scrupulously referenced). To answer your reader’s question: powder burns indicate a point blank shot. I believe there were also burns on Zimmerman’s clothes, though I don’t have time to hunt for a reference at the moment.

Furthermore, the prosecution’s co-lead investigator admitted under oath that (among other things) he doesn’t know who started the fight, and he has no evidence that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin rather than starting to walk back to the car. The transcript of the hearing (linked at the JOM blog) makes for incredible reading on a weak and unprepared prosecution getting eviscerated by Zimmerman’s lawyer.

Zimmerman’s lawyer, by the way, is shaping up to be superb.

Robert B. writes:

Where was Martin when Zimmerman shot him? People do not pay attention. The man who took the photo of Zimmerman’s head wounds stated that he could see the obvious gunpowder burns on Martin’s hoodie. Given that it was dark out and the powder burns were highly visible, this is a clear indication that Martin was shot at point blank range. I have extensive fire arms knowledge—I was given my first rifle at age eight. That’s forty-five years ago. You would not see a powder burn (though forensics could) from even three feet distance.

LA replies:

Your last sentence is confusing. It’s not clear how it interacts with what you say earlier about the man seeing the powder burn.

Robert replies:

Sorry for the confusion. Had Martin been standing up or at least three feet away from Zimmerman, the gunpowder burns would not be visible, ergo, Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the gun went off.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 21, 2012 12:37 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):