There are a number of odd things about the various pictures of George Z. These were supposedly taken the day after the famous killing. Is it reasonable to think the blood on the back of his head would still be there the day after?
And how about the difference between the nose in that photo on the left and the one I posted the other day - you know the one the gun-rights commenters all defended as being unenhanced?
But, naturally, the pot smoking of Trayvon Martin makes him a dangerous drug addict. This according to the gun-rights fanatics who usually support marijuana reform.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
You were told where the picture came from. I realize that it's not fun to you to look at facts and logic, but that's really too bad. If this is a day after the incident, could it be that Zimmerman had someone set his nose?
ReplyDeleteThis is why it's good that the trial is getting under way. We can finally see all the evidence without this battle of the leaks or whatever's been going on.
Regarding Martin, the pot smoking merely shows that he was an irresponsible teenager. The other things make him appear to have been a thug.
Sure, Greg. They set his nose and the swelling went right down. You'd go to any length to excuse the actions of a vigilante killer like Georgie. Why is that?
DeleteTeens who smoke pot are irresponsible? That doesn't sound consistent with your other remarks about the nearly-harmless activity of pot smoking.
As I said, you'd go to any length. You'd even deny that there's a big difference between an irresponsible teen smoking dope and a dangerous drug addict thug.
I've said that marijuana should be legal. But to use pot while it's against the law is risky. For teenagers to do it is irresponsible. The same is true for teens who drink alcohol.
DeleteWhat you can't understand is that there are levels of misdeeds. If Martin merely stayed home and smoked weed, that would be one thing. But, if the stories are true, he was involved in other acts of a more serious nature.
I don't know for sure about Zimmerman, but what I do see here is the need to present the other side of the case. You offer only the committed belief that Zimmerman is a murderer. You do that because he had a gun. I'm showing you that the other side has a good case.
" But, if the stories are true, he was involved in other acts of a more serious nature."
DeleteWhat happened to your insistence on innocent until proven guilty and giving the benefit of the doubt? Do you use those lofty principles with gun owners only. Besides, what in the fuck does Trayvon's past have to do with what happened that night. If you object to the liberal slant that he was a choir boy then you should also object to the Zimmerman defense that he was a thug gang banger. But you don't.
1. Martin is not on trial here. All we have to go on is the evidence of his behavior that's been presented. That goes to the understanding of what kind of person he was. But as has been pointed out, it's likely not going to be relevant in the trial.
Delete2. There's a world of difference between the judgement that government power makes and the opinions that private citiizens hold. You always want to impose your opinion on others with government power.
Mike, Are you seriously saying that the other photo was photoshopped by the defense? Or maybe by the prosecution?
ReplyDeleteThat photo is the one that the prosecution released. If it was photoshopped, it was done by the prosecution, which raises even more issues. As for the nose difference, That picture may have been taken by the paramedic BEFORE re-setting the broken nose. Or it could have been the result of swelling that went down by the time these shots were taken.
You ask about the dried blood. Did you happen to notice that he's wearing the same clothes in these pictures? After the shooting, he was taken to the police station for a few hours. In the video from there, you still see him wearing these same clothes. It would appear that these photos were taken after he got home--after that nights hours of interviews--and before he took these clothes off and washed the dried blood off of his scalp.
Honestly, Mike, I don't see who you think photoshopped the first photo, why they would do that, and why the prosecution wouldn't have already announced that and charged that person--after all, it's not like they can't look at the metadata on the photo and see when it was made and if it has been modified.
When you couple that wild accusation and the conspiracy theories about the blood in this picture, you're beginning to sound like Alex Jones.
Why do you find the idea of some kind of shenanigans so unbelievable. You, who distrust the government when it's convenient for your argument, now believes everyone's on the up and up.
DeleteMike,
DeleteI've pointed out shenanigans that were obviously pulled--the suppression of the photo you claim was photoshopped while only a hard copy was turned over--a hard copy in black and white, with such high contrast that all detail was washed out.
I have no problem believing in shenanigans being pulled. However, I have a hard time believing that the Prosecution, which wants Zimmerman in Jail, is going to conspire with his defense team to change the evidence in a way that helps him.
It would have been far easier to not charge him, to not charge his wife, to not fight as hard on each motion he makes, etc. etc. etc.
You have yet to explain who pulled the "shenanigans" here, when, what their motive was, and how you are the only person who has seen through to the truth when other parties with access to the photo haven't been able to tell that it was edited.
What's unbelievable is that the prosecution would try and torpedo their own case and risk their careers and freedom by easily discoverable criminal evidence tampering. The plan is about as well thought out as "Lancelot, Galahad, and I leap out of the rabbit..."
DeleteDid you read what Tennessean said? It's not a matter of trust. It's logic and easily verifiable facts. Why would the prosecution doctor a photograph to make their case look weak? Why would the defense doctor the picture when they surely know that they'd get caught in doing so?
DeleteBesides, again, you fail to recognize different levels. Prosecutors are local officials, dependent on the votes of their neighbors. Gun control and other sweeping abuses come from on high.
Why do you find the idea of some kind of shenanigans so unbelievable. You, who distrust the government when it's convenient for your argument, now believes [sic] everyone's on the up and up.
DeleteBeing suspicious of the government is one thing. Wildly accusing it of idiotic misconduct, for which there is no rational motive is an entirely different thing--and an vastly more silly one.
Oops--"and a vastly more silly one" is obviously what I should have said. My apologies.
DeleteBut who needs evidence? Who needs a fair and unbiased trial in this age of righteous leftist-fascism?
DeleteBurn the Witch, for the televised marionettes of the media-industrial complex have already branded him a (obligatory-gasp-in-horror) racist!
More disturbing is the fact that if Martin and Zimmerman had been of the same ethnicity, this wouldn't have been such a big deal. Hell, it wouldn't have even been newsworthy, especially considering the slaughter of genocidal proportions that occurs on a daily basis in low-income areas in every major city.
Face it, you don't care about the deaths of minorities (or anybody for that matter).
They are merely pawns to push your agenda or to wave the bloody shirt of fictitious prejudice in a feeble attempt to cover your own bigotry-stained history.
I don't know who produced which photos - and neither do you. All I see are two shots that were supposedly taken within a day of each other and they don't look at all alike.
DeleteYou guys are rabid to defend Zimmerman. Why? You keep telling me you're not racists, then what is it? Are you gun-owner supporters regardless of what they do as long as you have a chance of getting away with it?
You keep telling me you're not racists . . .
DeleteSpeaking personally, I don't remember telling you (or anyone else, for that matter) that I'm not a racist, because I have never been accused of racism by anyone with enough credibility to justify the time it would take to defend myself from such libels.
But while we're on the subject of racism, can you explain to us the moral distinction you evidently make between racial bigotry on the one hand, and repeated, vituperative expressions of utter disdain and contempt for the inhabitants of entire states, on the other?
In my case, I'm challenging the settled position that so many have taken against Zimmerman. I don't know ultimately what will come out at trial. But a whole lot of people, including many in the media, have taken the side of Martin against Zimmerman on the sole basis of race and did so long before any facts came out.
DeleteMike,
DeleteWe know from news reports that the first image, the one with the bloody nose that you say was photoshopped, was an image taken by a cop or paramedic the night of the shooting, and finally turned over to the Defense, who made it public, in October after the shooting. The state had earlier released a grainy, degraded, black and white version of the same photo in the first round of discovery in May after the shooting.
I don't remember the details on the photo at the top of this post, but the other one has a very public and pretty well known history.
The only thing that doesn't look alike in the photos is the nose which appears to have been re-set in these, and the swelling of which seems to have gone down some. The wounds on the nose match the ones seen in the first picture, they are just scabbed over.
As for your challenges and questions, I'll ignore your implication that I might be a secret racist of some sort. Why am I defending Zimmerman? I'm just pointing out the exculpatory evidence that is out there but being ignored. I'm waiting for the trial to see what other evidence comes out and which side it supports. Right now, I'm just trying to oppose a finding of guilty in the court of public opinion based on the evidence we currently have.
Frankly, if all of the evidence does prove that Zimmerman is guilty, I'd consider him worthy of death, regardless of what kind of person Trayvon was. However, if the evidence says that this was a justifiable shooting, then I want to see him vindicated. That won't take away from the tragedy of what happened here, but in the end, Trayvon's blood is on the head of whoever picked the fight, whether it was him or George.
"I don't know who produced which photos - and neither do you. All I see are two shots that were supposedly taken within a day of each other and they don't look at all alike."
Delete"This is a photo of George Zimmerman taken by a police officer on the night of February 26, 2012. A black and white photocopy of this image was provided by the State in the first Discovery. This high-resolution digital file was finally provided to the defense on October 29, 2012. This image was disclosed in the State's 9th Supplemental Discovery. In accordance with the updates to our media policy that we published on November 13, we will be making all public documents related to the case available on our website, including the rest of the State's 9th Supplemental Discovery as soon as we are sure it has been properly redacted according the the Court's stipulations on protecting information regarding specific witnesses."
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/03/15647937-defense-posts-george-zimmerman-photo-from-night-of-trayvon-martin-shooting?lite
So, the photo was released by the Zimmerman defense team after they received it from the prosecution. The photo was taken by the police the night of the shooting. In the time since, neither the defense or prosecution has challenged the authenticity of the photos, unlike NBC's heavily edited audio version of Zimmerman's conversation with the 911 dispatcher.
"Worthy of death?" My God you are an extremist.
Delete"Worthy of death?" My God you are an extremist.
DeleteMikeb-to-English dictionary--
Extremist: 1) Someone who does not share Mikeb's opinions
2) Any rational, decent person
And yes, I realize that's quite redundant, since 1) and 2) are simply two ways of saying the same thing.
An extremist? For saying someone deserves to die if they committed a murder? Not that the death penalty should be enacted on them, etc. but that their actions would have earned it?
DeleteDon't misunderstand me, Mike. I'm not saying Zimmerman should be executed if he's found guilty of murdering Trayvon. I support the death penalty, but only in cases where the proof is very strong. When the proof is not there, the person may deserve to die, but that doesn't mean that we have the right to kill them just because we think they deserve it.
Meanwhile, why did you just toss that out there? Could you not respond on the picture and wanted to distract from the fact that we showed that your theory was ludicrous?
Now: "Don't misunderstand me, Mike. I'm not saying Zimmerman should be executed if he's found guilty of murdering Trayvon."
DeleteThen: "Frankly, if all of the evidence does prove that Zimmerman is guilty, I'd consider him worthy of death, regardless of what kind of person Trayvon was."
I'm sure you'll have a lengthy explanation of this seeming contradiction. And Kurt will find a slick way to turn it around on me.
Mikeb, are you being deliberately infuriating?
DeleteTennessean was saying that a murderer is worthy of execution, though at times there's enough doubt that actually executing the convict is not always the best practical action. Do you really believe that things are only true because people decide them to be? Can't you see how something could be true, but at the same time difficult or impossible to determine?
Beyond that, why won't you address the facts here regarding the photographs? You've been shown repeatedly that these are pictures taken by the police and released by the prosecution. Why do you persist in pretending doubt as to their source?
Mike's just trying to cause a fight by pretending not to understand what I said. That way he can distract from the fact that he's been accusing the defense . . . or the prosecution . . . or borrowers . . . or maybe Cthulhu . . . he's never been clear about who--of photoshopping pictures to help Zimmerman.
DeleteHe's never said WHO did the dirty deed, and when asked about this he tried to muddy the water by saying that we didn't know WHO took the pictures. When he was showed this information (which a quick Google search could reveal) he decided to go with his final defense: Pick an unrelated topic and start trolling hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYMso9AZoQc
That's right I never said WHO did what because I understand that what you come up with on a "quick Google search" or anything else on the internet, is not completely reliable.
DeleteWhat are you telling us that you believe everything you read here? Or, do you believe only that which supports your argument? In those cases a "quick Google search" is Holy Writ, is that it?
Mikeb, answer these questions: Given the evidence that you've been shown, was the photograph altered? If so, by whom?
DeleteAh, changing tactics with the ink defense: now you're trying to suck me into in interminable argument regarding how one does research, the reliability of Google and it's results, and whether one can sort out the garbage it returns.
DeleteFunny how the news reports pulled up by a Google Search cannot be relied upon to say who took a picture, but those same reports can be used to say that since they didn't tell us that a person was a prohibited person, they were a lawful gun owner, and since they didn't mention if the person had a carry permit or not, it's safe to bet that they did, and that the paper is covering that up out of a pro gun bias.
And by the way, when have those of us here who support Marijuana reform ever used Martin's Marijuana use as a factor that made him dangerous and justified Zimmerman?
ReplyDeleteHere's just more of your favorite tactic of building a straw man instead of dealing with the real issues.
I won't bother to look back, but several of you guys have been total supporters of the pro-gun attack on Trayvon and defense of George. And that includes the spin job on his drug use.
DeleteAh, the "Just Trust Me" defense. Never mind that the last discussion of this case centered on who did what, not whether or not they were under the influence of any substances.
DeleteMy first guess on the difference between the wounds is that the broken nose is an impact injury against a smooth and padded surface, allegedly Mr. Martin's fist. I cant recall if Martin was wearing any jewlery on either hand.
ReplyDeleteThe back of his head, again allegedly was struck against the concrete sidewalk. Not much padding there. Sort of like when a kid falls and skins his knee. The texture of the surface can have an effect on that. Maybe a little stone on the sidewalk. A wound like that can weep blood and fluid for a day or two.
"A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation."
"The two lacerations on the back of his head, one of them nearly an inch long, the other about a quarter-inch long, were first revealed in photos obtained exclusively by ABC News last month."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-medical-report-sheds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532
The photo you posted was taken by police the night of the shooting and before any treatment of injuries. And the ones you posted were taken some time later.
Yeah, less than 24 hours later.
DeleteAnd you have a problem with the swelling having gone down by the time these pictures were taken--and with the dried blood still being on his scalp so long after the fight.
DeleteYou cite both as reasons to think that the other photo and these were staged.
Of course, it's impossible to think that after 3-4 hours of going to the police station, being interviewed, and heading home, the swelling might have gone down, and the blood might not have been washed off yet.
Very true TN. Mike, Its hard to say what the prosecution's intentions were in releasing the original photo that minimizes Zimmerman's injuries. But for some reason, there have been repeated instances of withholding or delaying the transfer of discovery evidence by the prosecution which needless to say would effect the quality of Zimmerman's defense.
DeleteMy first impression is that the prosecution was trying for some temporary win in the court of public opinion by releasing the first photo. The question then becomes, why? Did they actually believe that the higher quality color photos wouldnt become public?
How fast Zimmerman healed appearance wise afterwards is immaterial. The photos of the injuries taken by the police and the doctor's report documenting the injuries are real hard evidence that can be used to introduce reasonable doubt which is all that is needed to acquit. While Martin isnt on trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
. . . the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
DeleteYeah--that's where we run into trouble. Mikeb hates that.