LLMPapa follows his gripping Part II yesterday with Part III of Cardboard and Bullshit regarding the kill shot.
Cain’t hardly wait for Part IV.
LLMPapa follows his gripping Part II yesterday with Part III of Cardboard and Bullshit regarding the kill shot.
Cain’t hardly wait for Part IV.
LLMPapa produces a new video regarding the alignment of the bullet hole in Trayvon Martin’s chest and the aligned holes in the two sweatshirts that he was wearing.
Take a look . . .
I thought I had lost my capacity to be shocked when the man accused of shooting to death Trayvon Martin appeared on the Sean Hannity Show and told the nation that the shooting was “part of God’s plan” and he had “no regrets.” I could not and still cannot understand such a disdainful, casual and dismissive remark about killing any human being, no matter the justification. I have never killed anyone and I hope that I never do, but if I were to do so to save my life or the life of another person, I have no doubt that I would be emotionally devastated and sick with regret. I would expect to suffer post-traumatic stress in the form of flashbacks and nightmares for the rest of my life. I do not believe that my probable emotional and psychological reaction would be unlike yours and most everyone else on the planet, even if there were no doubt that we did what we had to do to survive or save another.
For all of my adult life, I have known that there are some people among us who can kill another human being as casually as we smack a mosquito that landed on our skin or a cockroach crawling across a counter top. They simply do not care and that does not change, even if it turns out that they killed an innocent person by mistake.
They do not care if a law or principle prohibits killing another person. At some point during their lives, if they conclude that they will benefit from killing another person, assuming they can get away with it, there is nothing to prevent them from killing except fear of failure or suffering an injury. I have known and represented people like that. I do not know why they are like that and they have told me that they do not know either. Fortunately, most people are not like that.
I believe it is important to know that these people, whom we call sociopaths, are not confined to any economic class, race, intellect, gender or religion. In fact, I believe they are more likely to be found among the predatory rich who regard the rest of us as a resource to be exploited for fun and profit. Suffice to warn that one must endeavor to identify them and I have found that the best way to do that is to know them by their deeds and their lies. They invariably leave a signature trail of using and exploiting others for personal gain without guilt or remorse.
You will know them by what they say and do.
In retrospect, I should not have been as surprised as I was by what he said on the Sean Hannity Show because all of his vital signs, including pulse and blood pressure, were normal and he exhibited no symptoms of shock or emotional distress when he was examined by an EMT within 15 minutes after the shooting. And this was not just any killing, assuming there is such a thing. This killing was not necessary and the person whom he murdered was an unarmed innocent.
I believe the evidence will convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he profiled, stalked and killed Trayvon Martin. He was the self-annointed Neighborhood Watch Captain searching for an opportunity to commit an heroic act that would draw attention and establish his bonafides as a reliable and effective protector of neighborhood residents and their property from Black law breakers. His opportunity to accomplish that objective and prove to the police that they should hire him appeared in the form of Trayvon Martin, a Black male teenager wearing a hoodie in his neighborhood whom he did not recognize.
That was all of the information he needed to take action. Without a shred of evidence or making any effort to identify himself and engage Trayvon in polite conversation to find out who he was and if he needed any assistance, he concluded that he was a criminal “up to no good.” Acting as judge, jury and executioner, he menaced and stalked Trayvon first in his vehicle and then on foot after Trayvon attempted to elude him by running into a grassy and unlit area between two buildings composed of town houses. Despite being warned and agreeing not to follow Trayvon by a police dispatcher who had already dispatched an officer to the scene, he pursued Trayvon into the dark area with a loaded gun and shot him to death mere seconds before the police arrived.
Although he admitted that he got out of his vehicle and went in the same direction as Trayvon, he denied following him. He said he was merely complying with the dispatcher’s request to provide an address where the suspect was so that he could relay it to the officer en route. There are several problems with this explanation.
First, he admitted to the dispatcher that he got out of his vehicle and followed Trayvon until the dispatcher warned him not to do that.
Second, he specifically agreed not to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher warned him not to do that.
Third, the dispatcher did not ask him to provide an address where Trayvon was.
Fourth, he told the police that he went to a location where Trayvon wasn’t to find an address to give the dispatcher.
Fifth, he never provided an address to the dispatcher.
Sixth, even though Trayvon’s body was discovered more than 40 feet away in the unlit area that he vehemently denied entering, he told the police that Trayvon emerged from the unlit area between the two buildings and knocked him to the ground as he was walking back to his vehicle. Therefore, Trayvon’s body was not where it should have been, if he had been telling the truth.
Seventh, he did not tell the dispatcher where his vehicle was parked or describe it so that the officer en route would know what vehicle to look for and where to find it.
Eighth, he terminated the call with the dispatcher after asking him to tell the officer to call his cell phone when he arrived in the neighborhood.
By now, it should be apparent to everyone that he followed Trayvon into the unlit area where he shot him to death and he intentionally lied when he denied following him because he wanted to conceal that he was the aggressor by conjuring up a lie in which Trayvon followed and attacked him. The 40 foot difference between where he says Trayvon attacked him and where he shot Trayvon to death is an enormously inconvenient fact that exposes him for the liar and murderer that he is.
You shall know them by their lies and by their acts.
But there is more.
He would have us believe that Trayvon inexplicably emerged from the unlit area, jumped him and attempted to beat him to death with his bare hands as he was returning to his vehicle after abandoning the chase. He told the police that he killed Trayvon in self-defense as he was on the verge of losing consciousness from having been decked by a punch to the nose, straddled and pummeled about the face repeatedly and gripped by the side of the head and the back of his head slammed against a concrete sidewalk multiple times until he thought his head would explode. Yet, Trayvon had no reason to attack him since he had no weapon of any kind and he had successfully eluded him. The menacing stranger also outweighed him by more than 40 pounds and had never identified himself.
In addition, he sustained only two minor capillary-type cuts to the back of his head and, despite a claimed broken nose, he declined multiple offers to be transported to a hospital for a more complete medical evaluation.
He appeared cool, calm and collected throughout the interview at the police station with no sign of emotional or psychological stress. High resolution photographs of his claimed injuries show only two minor cuts to the upper back part of his head that did not require any stitches or even a bandage. This is inconsistent with his claim that the back of his head was repeatedly slammed into the concrete sidewalk until he thought his head would explode. His nose, which he claims was broken, shows only minor discoloration and barely detectable swelling. This evidence also is inconsistent with his story.
No blood or his DNA was detected on the cuffs and lower sleeves of the two sweatshirts that Trayvon was wearing or on his fingernail clippings which is inconsistent with his story.
Apparently, he was not dismayed or the least bit troubled to find out later that Trayvon was a peaceful and innocent Black teenager walking home in the rain on an early Sunday evening around 7 pm and talking to his girlfriend on his cellular phone while armed with only a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles.
We know this because he told Sean Hannity that he had no regrets and would not do anything different because everything happened according to God’s plan.
You shall know them by their acts and their lies.
And now this unrepentant human being without a conscience has announced that he will be selling his autographed signature.
We need to focus today on the information available to us regarding the fatal shot in order to determine as best we can the respective positions of Zimmerman and Martin when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.
As we do so, we have to keep in mind that there are two bloodstains on Martin’s shirt, which he was wearing under the hooded sweatshirt. DNA analyst Anthony Gorgogne has identified Zimmerman as the source of Stain A. He also concluded that Stain D is a mixed sample of Zimmerman and Martin.
In yesterday’s article on the DNA results, I mentioned that those are the only bloodstains on Martin’s clothing that contain Zimmerman’s DNA. Depending on their location, I concluded that the bloodstains may be the result of dripped blood from Zimmerman’s head as he leaned forward over Martin’s body while he was dead or alive, or transferred blood from his hands as he touched Martin’s shirt.
Note that if we assume the fingers and palms of Zimmerman’s hands were bloody with his own blood, we would expect to see his blood on Martin’s hooded sweatshirt, if he grabbed Martin’s two sweatshirts together with his left hand and pulled them down and slightly to his left as he fired the fatal shot.
Gorgogne did not find Zimmerman’s blood or DNA on the hooded sweatshirt. That probably means he did not have any blood on the underside of his left hand and fingers when he gripped the shirt and sweatshirt or, if he did, he did not transfer it to the sweatshirt.
It also may mean that he did not grip the sweatshirts, although I still believe he did.
Recall that Gorgogne did not detect any of Zimmerman’s blood on Martin’s sweatshirt. Witnesses Mary Cutcher and her friend Selma saw him straddling Martin’s back and leaning forward touching his back and neck with his hands after the shot. Therefore, I do not believe he had any blood on his hands.
No blood is visible on his hands in the photographs taken by police at the station house after the shooting.
That does not mean that blood was not on his hands earlier, however, because the police incredibly permitted Zimmerman to wash up in the washroom at the station house before the photographs were taken. That is inexcusable. It is what it is, however, and we cannot change it.
We do know that Gorgogne identified Zimmerman’s blood on the grip of his Kel Tec 9 semiautomatic handgun. Could that bloodstain have been already present before the incident that resulted in Martin’s death?
For example, DNA preserves indefinitely in a dried bloodstain, so Zimmerman might have deposited his blood via transfer to the grip sometime before the incident with Martin on February 26th. He might not have known it was there. I do not recall seeing any blood on the grip of his gun in the photographs that were recently released. Given PCR’s exquisite sensitivity, not much blood would have to have been present to yield a complete DNA profile.
Now let us take a look at Amy Siewert’s lab report. She is a firearms expert and her report was in the first document dump. She described the locations of the two holes in the sweatshirts and I compared what she wrote to Dr. Bao’s description in the autopsy report regarding the location of the entry wound.
Siewert said the holes in the sweatshirts aligned with each other and were 7 inches below the shoulder/neck seam.
Dr. Bao said the entry wound was 1 inch to the left of the midline and 1/2 inch below the nipple.
I am 1-inch taller and the same weight as Trayvon. I placed a mark on my chest corresponding to the location of the entry wound and then I took one of my white tee-shirts and placed a mark 7 inches below the shoulder/neck seam. I put on the tee-shirt and, using the marl on my chest, I marked the location of the entry wound on the tee-shirt.
I took off the tee-shirt and measured the distance between the two marks.
The two marks are a little over 3 and 1/2 inches apart. The mark representing the hole in the sweatshirts is above and slightly displaced toward the left shoulder.
To perform this comparison with precision, one would need to place the sweatshirts on Trayvon’s body and precisely measure the distance between the holes and the entry wound and determine the angle of their displacement from the vertical.
I could not do that, so I approximated the distance at 3 inches with a displacement toward the left shoulder.
Could my conclusion have been mistaken? I do not think so, but I have to admit that it is certainly possible. Fabrics stretch and there was only so much that I could do to reproduce the state of the State’s evidence.
I hope someone on the prosecution team followed up with Siewert and Dr. Bao to nail down this point as well as the apparent discrepancy between her characterization of the hole as having been caused by the muzzle of the gun in contact with the fabric and his characterization of the shot having been fired from an intermediate range (i.e., 0.5 centimeters to 1 meter).
I note for the record that Dr. Bao described the entry wound as 3/8 inch in diameter with a 2 X 2 area of stippling around the wound.
Stippling is caused by unburned gun powder that enbeds in the wound and its periphery. The farther away the muzzle of the gun, the larger the area of stippling. With handguns there is no stippling apparent when the muzzle of the gun exceeds 1 meter from the entry wound at the time the shot is fired..
Contact wounds characteristically cause the skin to tear. This condition is called starring and it’s caused by the expanding gasses released by the burning gunpowder.
Siewert observed torn fabric that spread out from the holes caused by the shot. She prepared some cutouts using fabric from the two sweatshirts (actually the interior one has been redesignated as a shirt by the DNA analyst) and test fired Zimmerman’s gun using the same ammo from several different distances, including a contact shot. The tearing in the result from the experimental contact shot matched the tearing in the hole in the sweatshirt and that is why she concluded that it was a contact shot.
Dr. Bao did not note any tearing or starring around the entry wound.
D. Vincent di Maio, a respected forensic pathologist and the former Medical Examiner for Bexar County, Texas (San Antonio) reviewed Dr. Bao’s autopsy Report and estimated the muzzle of the gun was 2 to 4 inches from the entry wound when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot.
Dr. Bao characterized the fatal shot as “Directly, front to back.”
That is all the evidence we have.
Consider these questions:
(1) Did Zimmerman grip Martin’s sweatshirt and shirt with his left hand?
(2) If he did not (or even if he did) how did he immobilize Martin so that he could aim and squeeze off the perfect shot to the heart, or was it just a lucky shot?
(3) How and when did Zimmerman sustain the injuries to his nose and the back of his head?
(4) Do you believe the injury to his nose was caused by the recoil of his gun when he fired the fatal shot?
(5) What do you believe explains the presence of Zimmerman’s blood on Martin’s shirt?
(6) What do you believe explains the presence of Zimmerman’s blood on the grip of his gun?
As I said, I hope the prosecution has figured out the significance of the evidence as it is important to the outcome of the case.
I still believe that the agonizing shriek that abruptly ended with the shot and the interrogation and begging that preceded it establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not in imminent danger of being killed or suffering serious bodily injury when he shot and killed an unarmed Martin “evincing a depraved indifference to human life.”
The DNA results do not support Zimmerman’s claim that Martin assaulted him.
Zimmerman claimed that Martin punched him in the nose stunning and knocking him to the ground. Martin mounted him as he lay flat on his back, and started hitting him repeatedly in the face with his fists. Then he grabbed both sides of Zimmerman’s head and began slamming the back of his head into repeatedly into the cement.
When Zimmerman started screaming for help, Martin attempted to smother him by placing his hands over Zimmerman’s mouth and nose.
If this story were true, one would expect to see injuries on Zimmerman’s face and the back of his head, but there are no injuries, with the exception of a scab on the right side of the bridge of his nose and two little cuts or lacerations to the back of his head. These two superficial cuts bled copiously as scalp wounds tend to do.
The blood flow from those wounds is consistent with Zimmerman’s head in an upright position leaning forward and inconsistent with his claim that he was lying on his back.
One also would expect injuries to Martin’s hands, but there is only one small abrasion on the ring finger of his left hand where a ring normally would be worn. (Martin did not wear a ring)
Martin’s only bleeding wound was from the gunshot to his heart.
Now let’s take a look at the DNA evidence.
Left and Right Lower sleeves and Cuffs of Martin’s Shirt and Sweatshirt
No blood detected on any of them.
Martin’s DNA was detected on all of them. There were no DNA results foreign to Martin, with the exception of the left cuff and lower sleeve of the shirt, but the data was insufficient to include anyone due to its limited nature.
Martin’s Fingernail Cuttings
No DNA results foreign to Martin were found.
Note: The absence of Zimmerman’s DNA on the fingernail cuttings and the absence of injuries to Martin’s hands consistent with the beating Zimmerman described, as well as the absence of blood and Zimmerman’s DNA on the lower sleeves and cuffs of Martin’s shirt and sweatshirt leads me to conclude that Zimmerman’s story about Martin almost beating him to death is a lie.
In fact, other than Zimmerman’s story, I do not see any evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman.
He was certainly injured, but there are other possible causes for those injuries.
Martin’s Shirt (ME-8)
Bloodstain A: matches Zimmerman
Bloodstain B: matches Martin
Stain C no blood and no DNA
Bloodstain D: mixed DNA profile likely containing both Martin and Zimmerman
Bloodstain E: matches Martin
Martin’s Hooded Sweatshirt (ME-12)
Blood matches Martin.
Zimmerman’s DNA not present
The only place where Zimmerman’s blood and DNA are present is Martin’s shirt, which he was wearing underneath the hooded sweatshirt.
Bloodstain A is all Zimmerman
Bloodstain D is a mixed DNA sample containing Martin and Zimmerman’s DNA.
Pending review of color photographs of the two bloodstains on Martin’s shirt containing Zimmerman’s blood, I am inclined to believe that they are the result of any of the following:
(1) dripped blood from Zimmerman’s wounds as he leaned forward above Martin’s body either before or after the shot, or
(2) transferred blood from Zimmerman’s hands as he handled Martin’s body.
Because there are no eyewitnesses to the shooting except George Zimmerman, who claims he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, the prosecution will have to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
Unfortunately, Florida does not define circumstantial evidence other than to call it “indirect” evidence. See Wadman v. State, 750 So.2nd 655 (FL 1999).
Washington State, where I practiced law for many years, defines direct and circumstantial evidence as follows:
Direct evidence is that given by a witness who testifies concerning facts which he or she has directly observed or perceived through the senses.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which, according to common experience permit a reasonable inference that other facts existed or did not exist.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. One is not necessarily more or less valuable than the other.
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh’s trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, “Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence”. The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict.
In response to a Zimmerman supporter who posted recently here that circumstantial evidence can support conflicting conclusions, I said,
Anything is theoretically possible and the nature of circumstantial evidence is such that each individual circumstance in a chain of circumstances might indicate more than one possibility. However, when examined as a totality of circumstances, they add up to only one possibility.
Put another way, the more splainin’ that Zimmerman has to do by resorting to ridiculous extremes like, I was walking in the same direction as Martin but not following him because I was looking for a street name and an address to give the dispatcher, the more unlikely his story becomes. Especially when he has lived in the neighborhood for three years, patrolled it as the neighborhood watchman on a regular basis for months, and he walked right past townhouses on TTL with the addresses on them in plain view, ignored them, and never provided the dispatcher with an address. It doesn’t take any intelligence to figure out that he was never looking for an address.
Step by inexorable step he lies and lies and lies.
What is he concealing?
He wasn’t out there exercising in the rain.
He was hunting.
The answer is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell.
The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all theoretical doubt.
I am not going to detail every lie that we have revealed and discussed at length because I want to go macro on y’all and look at the big picture.
Is there a discernible pattern to his lies that reveals his intent or are his lies mere random occurrences that happen due to chance?
Consider, for example, his stubborn insistence that Trayvon Martin suddenly came out of the bushes next to a townhouse or materialized out of the gloom on the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the intersection and confronted him as he was on the sidewalk cut-through between TTL and RVC supposedly minding his own business returning to his vehicle parked on TTL.
Some who post here and at other internet sites contend that we must take GZ at his word and cannot look at other evidence (i.e., the circumstantial evidence) to determine if he is telling the truth and, if not, discern his intent.
Sorry, but that is not how trials work.
GZ claims that TM sucker punched him knocking him to the ground and then he jumped on him and started beating his head into the sidewalk and punching him repeatedly in the face.
Aside from the lack of physical injuries that would be consistent with such a claim, the location of the fight is inconsistent with the location of TM’s body. That is, if GZ is telling the truth, the body and the location of the fight should be in the same place, but they are not and he has no explanation for that other than he kind of sort of stumbled after TM hit him. Yet, that explanation only gets him a little less than halfway to the location of the body and various items found within a few feet of it, such as his phone, the earbuds, the can of iced tea, the Skittles, and the spent casing.
We have to ask ourselves what does the circumstantial evidence tell us regarding the fight that ended with TM’s death? That is, what can we reasonably infer from the evidence at the scene.
The initial conclusion is GZ lied about the nature and extent of Martin’s attack because his injuries do not support his story and his conflicting claim regarding where and how Martin confronted him tells us he changed his story during the walk-through video the next day when he realized there were no bushes at the scene behind which Martin could have been hiding.
What do these lies suggest?
They suggest GZ went looking for Martin in the area between the two rows of townhouses and found him where the shooting occurred.
If that is what happened, why would he lie about it?
The obvious conclusion is that he did not want to admit that he went hunting for Martin and found him.
Why is that a problem?
Maybe it has something to do with his statement, “These assholes, they always get away, fuckin’ coons.”
Hmmnn. That sounds like GZ was determined to make sure this “asshole” did not get away.
Why would GZ lie about Martin jumping him?
Could it be because he knew an aggressor cannot claim self-defense?
A pattern is apparent in these lies. They all appear to be motivated by a desire to cover up that he was the aggressor who hunted down TM and attempted to detain him, but TM did not submit to his authority willingly. A struggle ensued in which GZ sustained some minor injuries and he shot and killed TM without legal justification.
This is the incredible power of circumstantial evidence because, ultimately, the explanations GZ offers for each item of evidence become increasingly strained until they degenerate into irrelevant and irritating whining.
As I have said before, he is his own worst enemy and his conviction of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree will materialize out of his own lyin’ mouth and the abundant circumstantial evidence.
I recently listened again to the terrified scream that ended with a gunshot and, for the following reasons, I am now even more certain that TM was screaming.
(1) The scream abruptly stops with the gunshot, which is exactly what one would expect to happen, if TM were screaming. Since the bullet destroyed his right ventricle and collapsed both lungs, he would have lost consciousness almost immediately and would not have been able to push any air past his vocal cords to make a sound.
(2) If GZ were screaming, I do not believe he would have stopped screaming at the exact instant he fired the gun because he would not have known if his life was still in danger and he needed help.
(3) Indeed, according to GZ, he thought his life was still in danger and he kept calling for help. He said he did not know if the shot hit TM and did not find out that he killed TM until an hour and a half after he arrived at the police station. He said TM sat up and said something like, “You got it or you got me.” Then TM fell over or GZ pushed him aside and quickly straddled TM’s body, which was face down. He grabbed TM’s hands and spread them apart so that TM was in a Y-position and he could prevent him from getting up or reaching his gun. He said TM was struggling to get away and kept swearing at him. GZ added that when the neighbor showed up and asked if he should call 911, he told him “No. I need help controlling this guy. Help me, please.” If that story were true, and absolutely none of it is, he would not have stopped screaming or calling for help. Consider, for example, that TM’s body was face down in the grass with his hands under his chest.
(3) There are no audible screams or calls for help after the shot and the scream that ends abruptly with the shot is not a scream for help.
(4) The person is screaming, “No!”
(5) People seeking help do not scream “No.”
(6) We know GZ was lying because it would have been physically impossible for TM to have done any of the things GZ said he did after he fired the fatal shot.
(7) GZ would have realized that no one would believe he killed TM in self-defense, if TM were the person screaming. Therefore, he had to claim that he was the person screaming and he had to tell a story that would support his claim. Depicting TM as still struggling and swearing after the shot was part of that false narrative.
(8) Unfortunately for GZ, he got carried away with supplying false details to support his false narrative. He failed to realize that he would not have had any reason to stop screaming after the shot, if the details he provided about TM being still alive and struggling to get his gun were true and, of course, he did not know that the gunshot wound would prove that all of the unnecessary and inconsistent after-the-shot details he provided were false.
Of course, I have other reasons I have mentioned in previous articles and comments explaining why I believe TM was screaming for help. Briefly,
(9) GZ was an ex-bouncer who had worked security at raves and he was over 40 pounds heavier than TM. He was armed with a loaded gun and TM was unarmed. He would have had a significant physical advantage in a wrestling type encounter with TM.
(10) GZ’s injuries were superficial and no reasonable person would believe he was in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. For example, the photographs taken at the police station do not support his claim that he had a broken nose and there are no X-rays to support his claim. The two small cuts to the back of his head do not support his claim that his head was repeatedly banged against a sidewalk and the pattern of the blood flow is not consistent with GZ lying on his back. It is consistent, however, with GZ’s head being upright and leaning forward. The absence of significant abrasions and swelling also are inconsistent with his claim.
(11) As mataharley pointed out yesterday, the debris field commencing with GZ’s small flashlight and key chain next to the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the T intersection and extending south and a little beyond TM’s body indicates a struggle headed S/B toward the place where TM was staying. This is consistent with TM screaming and attempting to flee toward the place where he was staying with GZ in hot pursuit attempting to prevent him from getting away and inconsistent with GZ’s claim that TM assaulted and attempted to kill him with his bare hands up near the T intersection.
(12) The trajectory of the entry wound directly from front to back, the stippling around the wound, and the alignment of the two holes in the garments he was wearing with the wound indicate the sweatshirts were gripped together and pulled down when GZ fired the fatal shot with the muzzle of the gun in contact with the garment and 2-4 inches from the entry wound. This is not consistent with GZ’s claim of self-defense, but it is consistent with TM attempting to pull away and screaming “No” when GZ fired the fatal shot.
(13) The absence of any of GZ’s blood on the sleeves and cuffs of TM’s sweatshirts and the presence of only TM’s DNA on his fingernail scrapings is inconsistent with GZ’s claim that TM was hitting him repeatedly in the face, gripping and slamming his bloody head repeatedly into the concrete, and gripping his nose while attempting to close his mouth to suffocate him and prevent him from screaming.
Amy L. Siewert is a Crime Laboratory Analyst employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Crime Laboratory. She examined TM’s Fruit of the Loom dark gray hooded sweatshirt (Exhibit ME 12) and the light gray Nike sweatshirt (Exhibit ME 8) that he was wearing underneath the hoodie when GZ shot and killed him
In her report dated March 22, 2012, she concluded:
The sweatshirts each display a hole located in the upper chest area. The areas around these holes were microscopically examined and chemically processed for the presence of gunshot residues. Both holes displayed residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot.
In her bench notes, which the prosecution released in the recent document dump last Thursday, she specifically noted that her microscopic examination of the the light gray sweatshirt (ME 8) “shows results consistent with a contact shot (tearing a hole, sooting around the hole, burning/singeing, no powder pattern, vaporous Pb surrounding the hole). She also noted that the hole exhibited “stellate” tearing. She described the hole in the hooded sweatshirt (ME 12) identically, but noted L-shaped tearing.
These are the classic signs of a contact shot. That is, the muzzle of the gun was in contact with the outer hooded sweatshirt with the light gray sweatshirt immediately behind, or in contact with it.
She also test fired GZ’s gun into squares of cloth cut from both sweatshirts and verified that the muzzle of the gun was in contact with the sweatshirts.
She also noted that the holes in the sweatshirts align with each other.
She also measured the vertical distance from the hole up to to the neck seam at approximately 7 inches. The horizontal distance to the shoulder seam was approximately 7 1/2 inches.
Although these holes align with each other, they do not align with the entry wound in TM’s chest. According to the autopsy report, the entry wound is 1 inch left of the midline and 1/2 inch below the left nipple.
Therefore, the entry wound is approximately 3 1/2 inches below and 2 1/2 inches closer to the midline than the holes in the sweatshirts.
Also significant is that the entry wound was caused by a gunshot in which the muzzle of the gun was at an intermediate range of 2-4 inches.
What does this mean?
I believe it means the sweatshirts were being pulled down or being held by GZ as TM was pulling back or attempting to stand up (and probably screaming for help as he did so) when GZ pressed the muzzle of his gun against the hooded sweatshirt and pulled the trigger. The two sweatshirts were in contact with each other (i.e., gripped together) and approximately 2-4 inches from his chest.
The trajectory of the shot would have been straight through neither varying up or down nor left or right, if TM were leaning forward while attempting to get away, but restrained from escaping by GZ’s grip on his sweatshirts.