Dunno? May be smeared a bit, down at the bottum...
you can see his hairline through/under the blood
or his blood is awfully thin
OMHO..
The blood on GZ's head reminds me of that fake blood my grandson put on his face last Haloween..JMHO
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dunno? May be smeared a bit, down at the bottum...
you can see his hairline through/under the blood
or his blood is awfully thin
OMHO..
I know I sound like a broken record but let me say one more time: I had my head repeatedly slammed into a hard surface (a tile floor, not a sidewalk) and I did not bleed. IMO, the amount of blood is not important. But clearly, the man was involved in something that made his head bleed, which is consistent with his story.
JMO, OMO, and :moo:
Repost from my last week's posting:
This is why I think the blood is not smeared in the photo we have seen.
There are no straight drip lines on the back of his head. If he had been walking around bleeding there should have been lines that ran straight down his scalp.
What I see is that all the lines run down and then break to one side or the other of the center of the back of his head. This makes me think that the head had been clean off just prior to the picture being taken and all the drip lines we see are fresh blood that ran while his head was in a semi tilted down position.
Of course that is just how it appears to me.
BBM
Not according to the investigator who took the stand at the bond hearing, which is why the detectives wanted charges and was nixed by Wolfinger..but he did say GZ's story was inconsistant with the evidence...
And GZ has good reason to lie. Simply because a killer is the only witness left alive does not mean we take his word as gospel.
And yet, if GZ had been beaten to death (with an untouched gun in his waistband no less), and TM's story was that he had to kill GZ in self-defense, we would be saying he was the one with a reason to lie.And GZ has good reason to lie. Simply because a killer is the only witness left alive does not mean we take his word as gospel.
Do we have a list of detectives (plural) who wanted charges that night, before the alleged surreptitious meeting with NW? And do we know that the reason "they" allegedly wanted GZ charged was because of inconsistencies between his injuries and his statements/evidence? I have not heard any of this... if you have info, please explain. TIABBM
Not according to the investigator who took the stand at the bond hearing, which is why the detectives wanted charges and was nixed by Wolfinger..but he did say GZ's story was inconsistant with the evidence...
Do we have a list of detectives (plural) who wanted charges that night, before the alleged surreptitious meeting with NW? And do we know that the reason "they" allegedly wanted GZ charged was because of inconsistencies between his injuries and his statements/evidence? I have not heard any of this... if you have info, please explain. TIA
JMO
The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.
But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman............
Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.
The pictures was taken at 7:19pm. The only officer there at the time was Smith. So who would have wiped his head? SFD had not arrived yet??? jmo
We have this about Det Serino
Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted Manslaughter Charge
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...n-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T6BJrdUZtVs
Snips
Need that doc dump ....
Maybe the same person that took the photo???
Then we have what Serino actually said:
"Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.
Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account that he had acted in self-defense.
"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."
Possible crime being investigated - key words.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency
So Zimmerman had bandages on the back of his head and his nose the day after he shot Trayvon. Why were there none on him the night of the shooting? Usually a bandage is used to prevent bleeding or to help keep the wound clean. I would think that a bandage would be best applied immediately after receiving the injury instead of hours later deciding to go ahead and put one on. Unless of course one uses the bandages as simply a sign to others that yes, they were injured even if the injuries were not severe enough to require bandages. I also thought that someone, was it Zimmerman Sr?, said that Zimmerman had a protective covering on his nose. Is he considering a bandage the protective covering or is talking about a splint like covering that is commonly used for broken noses?
MOO
What would convince me would be written documentation from either LE or the paramedics accompanied by verified photos that LE took, not some unproven source that could have been photoshopped, or wounds self-inflicted by George after the fact, and not statements from unreliable eyewitness neighbors that saw bandages the next day at a distance!:banghead::banghead::banghead:So what WOULD convince you that there were injuries? I mean COME ON. No bandages, means no injury, bandages means FAKED to indicate an injury that wasn't there. Police report that there were injuries, well, police report must have been faked. A PICTURE of one of the injuries. Nope, must have been faked, and if not, well, he caused it himself maybe, and where are the pictures of the OTHER injuries.
Lets be honest, you are placing an UNFAIR amount of pressure on GZ to "prove" he was injured, then shooting down EVERY offering that he was injured, NOT with "reason" or investigative techniques, but with UNREASONABLE statements and accusations.
What would convince me would be written documentation from either LE or the paramedics accompanied by verified photos that LE took, not some unproven source that could have been photoshopped, or wounds self-inflicted by George after the fact, and not statements from unreliable eyewitness neighbors that saw bandages the next day at a distance!:banghead::banghead::banghead:
The photos that are out there in the media are tabloid-quality material, doesn't prove anything. I wanted verified photos with timestamps that are shown in court!