Unfinished forensics in Trayvon Martin case

August 2, 2013

Friday, August 2, 2013

Good morning to all of our friends:

I write this morning regarding unfinished forensics with Trayvon’s case and to urge Benjamin Crump to consult with someone who is knowledgeable about forensics before he decides whether to sue George Zimmerman for wrongful death.

Piranha Mom’s comment at 12:09 am inspired me to write this post.

If a civil claim is filed against Zimmerman by Trayvon’s family, Professor Fred and all of us must put together the DEFINITIVE narrative, citing each movement with justification and evidence, and supply it to Trayvon’s family and attorneys.

We know what happened.

We have had the forensic evidence at our fingertips — and we know it all by heart. We were open in our analysis.

We DIDN’T expect we had to provide this to the prosecution.

But they were so full of hubris and the big award Bernie was to receive, and paid little attention to evidence. Bernie even thinks Trayvon took part in the battle, not that he was struggling to get away. If the prosecutor has no faith in the victim, or in the chief witness for the prosecution, what could we expect to get?

The verdict we got.

Won’t make THAT mistake again!

Yes, Piranha Mom is right and here are three glaring examples.

Amy Siewart, the crime lab firearms analyst who examined Trayvon’s sweatshirts, apparently never read the autopsy report or conferred with Dr. Bao regarding whether the bullet holes in the sweatshirts aligned with the entry wound in Trayvon’s chest. Evidently, no one at FDLE or any member of the prosecution team thought about that possibility either.

Yet, that was the first thought that occurred to me when I read that first document dump and LLMPapa was all over that issue too. I wrote about it and he made several videos about it. Both of us discussed the implications.

We even argued with the self-described crime scene expert from Jacksonville, Michael Knox, about the proper conclusions to draw from that evidence.

Massive and inexcusable failure of LE and the prosecutor’s office not to see and comprehend the significance of that evidence.

Massive and inexcusable failure by BDLR not to use the State’s DNA expert, Anthony Gorgone, to clear-up the confusion created by the defense regarding whether rain can wash away DNA and whether packaging Trayvon’s sweatshirt in a plastic biohazard bag would degrade all DNA present, such that it could not be detected with STR/PCR.

Siewart also should have been questioned regarding (1) the unusually strong kickback of a KelTec 9 semiautomatic handgun when fired with one hand, and (2) whether the distance between the two spires on the rear gunsight match the distance between the two pinholes on the tip of Zimmerman’s nose that bled so copiously.

I believe those distances match and Siewart could testify that the gun could have caused the injuries to Zimmerman’s nose, if he fired the fatal shot within a few feet of his face while holding the gun with one hand as Zimmerman described.

________________________________________________________________

Your financial support allows us to continue posting independent articles like this.

There have not been many donations lately.

Without your continuing financial support, we would have to shut down this website.

Please donate to keep independent journalism alive.

We thank you for your support.

Fred and Crane-Station


Featuring Malisha identifying who the good guys are

July 29, 2013

Monday, July 29, 2013

Good morning to all of our friends:

Crane has a post up about a pregnancy disaster in jail and I have a post about the Supremacy Clause trumping the Nullification Doctrine, which is quite popular with state’s-rights and 10th Amendment enthusiasts. This is the same crowd racist crowd that has supported and continues to support George Zimmerman. They want to re-fight the civil war to reestablish white supremacy and segregation and legitimize slavery through imprisonment and debt.

I think this group is far more dangerous to our collective peace and security than Muslim terrorists.

I am featuring Malisha’s comment this morning because I think she nailed why so many powerful and influential people decided to demonize a child and rig the outcome for George Zimmerman

I think we actually DO know the truth, but up until this very morning I had not put it into a sentence. The sentence it came to me through was Serino’s sentence when he began to gently — ever so minutely and shyly, like a little girl wondering, with her thumb in her mouth, if she could ask the regal old woman for a cookie — question Fogen’s story. Serino said, mid-sentence, after saying that Trayvon Martin was not doing anything wrong, “You’re still the good guy here.”

Those (and now, the individuals included in “those” is legion) who worked hard to exonerate Fogen after he murdered Trayvon Martin were essentially saying:

Fogen has to still be the good guy here.
No matter WHAT he did,
No matter WHAT WHOPPERS he told,
No matter how innocent and undeserving Trayvon was;
No matter what the facts show,
No matter what the forensics reveal,
No matter what the law says,
No matter what his intentions were,
No matter how many wrongs he committed,
No matter what the morality issues are,
No matter what (including but not limited to ANYTHING)

George Zimmerman has got to stay THE GOOD GUY here.

… why? …

Because if he is NOT,
THEN:

A white guy went out hunting and chased down an anonymous Black kid he picked and targeted like game in a forest,
and he chased him
and he scared him
and he killed him
and there is no excuse.
And he did it because he knew he could get away with it.
And he DID get away with it.

If a theorem is true, the contrapositive is true.

If a white guy is a good guy,
then he is right to target and kill a Black and blame the Black.

If he is NOT right
(to target and kill a Black and blame the Black)
then he is not a good guy.

Since this case started with everyone in power saying:

HE IS STILL THE GOOD GUY,

Then he had to be NOT GUILTY of any crime
because it HAD to be that what he did was right.

OtherWISE, all the wrongs the white South has committed
would make them NOT the good guys any more.

And Rick Scott would not put up with that.
State’s Rights.

Serino gave us the verdict in the very beginning:

“YOU’RE STILL THE GOOD GUY HERE.”

Let us know your thoughts on this matter and if you believe Michael Dunn’s prosecution and trial will be rigged in his favor for the same reason.


George Zimmerman is a menace to society

July 28, 2013

Sunday, July 28, 2013

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO CRANE-STATION!

Good morning my friends:

I do not believe George Zimmerman rescued anyone from that overturned SUV, but let us indulge ourselves and suspend disbelief for a few minutes.

Due to the possibility of a spinal fracture or spinal cord injury, that is an excellent way to kill or seriously injure someone (See #3 below).

WikiHow provides a step-by-step process to follow:

1. Evaluate the situation. Are there things that might put you at risk of harm? Are you or the victim threatened by fire, toxic smoke or gasses, an unstable building, live electrical wires or other dangerous scenario? Do not rush into a situation where you could end up as a victim yourself.

2. Remember your A,B,Cs. The A,B,Cs of first aid refer to the three critical things you need to look for.

Airway – Does the person have an unobstructed airway?
Breathing – Is the person breathing?
Circulation – Does the person show a pulse at major pulse points (wrist, carotid artery, groin)?

3. Avoid moving the victim. Avoid moving the victim unless they are in immediate danger. Moving a victim will often make injuries worse, especially in the case of spinal cord injuries.

4. Call Emergency Services. Call for help or tell someone else (a specific person, if possible) to call for help as soon as possible. If you are the only person on the scene, try to establish breathing before calling for help, and do not leave the victim alone for an extensive amount of time.

5. Determine responsiveness. If a person is unconscious, try to rouse them by gently shaking and speaking to them.

6.If the person remains unresponsive, carefully roll them onto their back and open his airway.

Keep head and neck aligned.
Carefully roll them onto their back while holding his head.
Open the airway by lifting the chin.

7. Look, listen and feel for signs of breathing. Look for the victim’s chest to rise and fall, listen for sounds of breathing (place your ear near the nose and mouth, and feel for breath on your cheek.

If the victim is not breathing, see the section below.

If the victim is breathing, but unconscious, roll them onto their side, keeping the head and neck aligned with the body. This will help drain the mouth and prevent the tongue or vomit from blocking the airway.

8.Check the victim’s circulation. Look at the victim’s color and check their pulse (the carotid artery is a good option; it is located on either side of the neck, below the jawbone). If the victim does not have a pulse, start CPR.

9. Treat bleeding, shock, and other problems as needed. After you have established that the victim is breathing and has a pulse, your next priority should be to control any bleeding. Particularly in the case of trauma, you should take steps to control or prevent shock. Click on any of the linked articles for detailed instructions on how to manage a particular problem.

How to Stop Bleeding – Control of bleeding is one of the most important things you can do to save a trauma victim. Use direct pressure on a wound before trying any other method of managing bleeding. Read the linked article for more detailed steps you can take.

How to Treat Shock – Shock, a loss of blood flow to the body, frequently follows physical and occasionally psychological trauma. A person in shock will frequently have cool, clammy skin, be agitated or have an altered mental status, and have pale color to the skin around the face and lips. Untreated, shock can be fatal. Anyone who has suffered a severe injury or life-threatening situation is at risk for shock. Click on the linked article for information on how to treat shock.
How to Help a Choking Victim – Choking can cause death or permanent brain damage within minutes. Read this article for ways to help a choking victim. The article addresses helping both children and adult choking victims.

How to Treat a Burn – Treat first and second degree burns by immersing or flushing with cool water (no ice). Don’t use creams, butter or other ointments, and do not pop blisters. Third degree burns should be covered with a damp cloth. Remove clothing and jewelry from the burn, but do not try to remove charred clothing that is stuck to burns.
Treat a Concussion – If the victim has suffered a blow to the head, look for signs of concussion. Common symptoms are: loss of consciousness following the injury, disorientation or memory impairment, vertigo, nausea, and lethargy. Read the linked article for the best ways to treat a concussion.

How to Treat a Spinal Injury Victim – If you suspect a spinal injury, it is especially critical that you not move the victim’s head, neck or back UNLESS THEY ARE IN IMMEDIATE DANGER. You also need to take special care when performing rescue breathing or CPR. Read this article to learn what to do.

How to Treat a Bullet Wound – Bullet wounds are serious and unpredictable. Read on for special considerations when treating someone who has suffered a gunshot wound.

10. Stay with the victim until help arrives. Try to be a calming presence for the victim until assistance can arrive.

For additional information on what to do, please go ref=”http://www.wikihow.com/Do-Basic-First-Aid”>here.

So let me get this straight. This fool calls 911 when someone is walking in the rain but he does not call 911 when he happens on the scene of a rollover accident.

What a guy!

If George Zimmerman truly is not guilty of murder and he did pull people out of this wreck, he has not learned anything from his experience with Trayvon Martin and continues to be a menace to society.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.


Will the defendant testify or not testify?

July 6, 2013

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Good afternoon:

I write regarding whether the defendant should testify.

I advised my clients not to testify, unless there was some specific reason why I believed they had to testify. That reason typically would involve testifying about something that the jury would not otherwise know unless the client testifies. This is a common occurrence is self-defense cases and why most lawyers will say that a client must testify in such a case.

As Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei said yesterday, the use of deadly force in self-defense is unlawful unless the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering serious injury when he used deadly force. The reasonableness requirement means that the defendant’s conduct must be evaluated objectively by comparing his conduct to the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation.

The jury of 6 women, 5 of whom are mothers, will decide whether the defendant acted reasonably.

The defendant is the only person who can tell them whether he believed he was in such danger when he shot Trayvon Martin. According to various witnesses who have testified, he described a situation to them that, if true, probably would objectively constitute such a danger. For the past year, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara has been aggressively selling the defendant’s story on national television and waiving the two bloody cell phone photographs of the back of the defendant’s head and his face as proof that the defendant acted reasonably. I think the national media has uncritically accepted O’Mara’s sales job and shamelessly promoted it.

The critical question, however, is whether the 6 women, 5 of whom are mothers, believe what the defendant told others. They are not required to believe anything he said. I doubt they will believe him, given his many contradictory statements, implausible claims, and the forensic evidence, particularly the DNA evidence, which proves that Trayvon Martin did not hit him 20-30 times in the face, grab his head and repeatedly slam it into a concrete sidewalk, or attempt to smother him by placing his hands over the defendant’s nose and mouth.

I believe the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant provoked the encounter with Trayvon Martin by following him in a vehicle and then on foot after Trayvon attempted to elude him. He hunted him down and attempted to restrain him contrary to a request by the police dispatcher not to follow him and he never identified himself or explained why he was restraining him. Under these circumstances, Trayvon Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself, escalating to deadly force when the defendant pulled out his gun. Therefore, Trayvon Martin used lawful force to defend himself and the defendant’s use of force was unlawful.

If he were my client, I would tell him that this is my assessment.

If he responded with, “What about my mother identifying me as the person who screamed?” I would say she did not do so unequivocally. Sybrina Fulton did and she was credible.

I would tell him that he gets to make the call regarding whether to testify. Given my assessment that the jury is going to convict him, I would also tell him that his only chance to avoid conviction would be to testify and persuade those 6 women, 5 of them mothers, that they should not convict him.

I would explain the following information.

The burden of proof in all criminal cases in this country is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged. The defendant is presumed innocent throughout the trial and the jury must find him “not guilty” unless the prosecution overcomes the presumption of innocence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The term “beyond a reasonable doubt” is generally defined as such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully and fairly considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence. The prosecution is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, just beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally, a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason exists, as opposed to a speculative doubt or a mere suspicion. The Florida instruction states that a person is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt if they have an abiding belief in the truth of the charge. An abiding belief is a long lasting belief. The idea is that a juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt if they are sure that they will not change their mind sometime in the future due to some doubt they have about the strength of the evidence.

The definition of reasonable doubt is circular, which frustrates jurors who expect and want reasonable doubt quantified. For example, preponderance of the evidence, which is the burden of proof in a civil case, is defined as proving that a proposition is more likely so than not so or supported by more than 50% of the evidence. There is no equivalent percentage of certainty used to define reasonable doubt. I believe most trial lawyers and judges would agree that it’s possible that different juries hearing the same case could reach different conclusions. This is why attorney voir dire during jury selection and the use of cause and peremptory challenges to select a jury are so critically important.

Our legal system guards and protects the sanctity of the jury room and juror deliberations. A jury is never required to explain or justify its verdict. As a result, a jury actually gets to decide what constitutes reasonable doubt, even though they are never told that they have this power. The jury is a reflection of the community and it acts as the conscience of the community when it decides whether the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would tell him that if he can express his humanity and touch their hearts, he has a chance at manslaughter.

I would also tell him that he must tell the truth without any bullshit like he uttered on the Hannity Show.

He must admit when he lied, to whom he lied, and why he lied.

He must convince them that he acted out of fright, not anger.

I think he’s going to testify for all the wrong reasons because he has always been able to lie his way out of trouble.

Ain’t going to work this time.

I have one final reason for believing he will testify. His lawyers did not voir dire the prospective jurors on his right to remain silent and not testify. I always did that in my cases to make sure the jurors understood that they could not use his silence against him by presuming he had something to hide.


Judge Debra Nelson denies defense motion for judgment of acquittal

July 5, 2013

Friday, July 5, 2013

Good evening:

Judge Debra Nelson summarily denied a defense motion for a judgment of acquittal this afternoon after the State rested its case.

The first witness called by the defense was the defendant’s mother, Gladys Zimmerman, who identified him as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek that is audible in the background of a 911 call. However, she admitted on cross examination that she had never heard him scream for help or cry out like that.

Her testimony contrasted sharply with testimony this morning by Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, who identified him quietly and sorrowfully without equivocation.

The State rested its case after presenting the testimony of Dr. Bao, the Assistant Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy on Travon Martin. He described the gunshot wound as direct from front to back with the hollow point bullet passing through the front and rear wall of the right the ventricle before coming apart and scattering in different directions finally coming to rest in the pericardial sac.

He testified that Trayvon would have been conscious and in pain from 1 to 10 minutes but unable to move or speak during that time. His testimony contradicts the defendant’s claim that Trayvon sat up and said, “You got it,” or “You got me.”

It also makes it extremely unlikely that he did not know that Trayvon was dead before the police arrived, contradicting his claim on the Sean Hannity Show that he did not know that he’d hit Trayvon when he fired the shot and did not find out he was dead until someone told him at the police station later that evening.

The defendant’s claim on the Sean Hannity Show that he has no regrets, would not do anything differently, and everything happened according to “God’s plan,” is chilling in light of today’s testimony.

Judge Nelson recessed the trial for the weekend until Monday morning at 9 am EDT.

Between now and then, the defendant will have to decide whether to testify or remain silent.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.


Welcome to liveblogging day 9 Zimmerman trial (morning session)

July 5, 2013

Friday, July 5, 2013

Good morning:

Court will resume this morning at 8:30 am EDT.

The prosecution probably will rest is case today.

I am expecting the Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. Bao, who did the autopsy. Expect graphic and gruesome photos. If you aren’t into that, you may want to cover your screen and listen.

Also expecting the State to call a wind-up witness, possibly FDLE Detective Gilbreath to connect all the dots with charts, diagrams and timelines.

Sybrina Fulton may also testify to identify Trayvon’s voice. If she does, expect Don West to do his best to impeach her credibility by accusing her of being a bad parent and bringing up the lawsuit against the HOA.

Here’s the link to the livestream coverage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52117880/

See you in court.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.

Thank you


Defendant faces Hobson’s Choice

July 4, 2013

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Happy Independence Day to everyone!

I write today to allay concerns regarding the sufficiency of the State’s case.

First, we know they are going to call the Dr. Bao, the Assistant Medical Examiner who did the autopsy. I think we can reasonably expect that he will tie up any remaining loose ends regarding Trayvon’s death. Expect graphic and gruesome photographs that will firmly ground this case in the reality of a death that did not need to happen.

Second, the prosecution always ends its case-in-chief with what we call a wind-up or summary witness who ties everything together with the aid of charts, graphs and timelines that bring the evidence into focus. I am anticipating that FDLE Detective Gilbreath will be the witness and Bernie de la Rionda will ask the questions that steers him through the maze and haze.

Third, I am expecting the State will call Sybrina Fulton and she will identify her son as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek.

I believe the State will use most of tomorrow to finish up its case.

After the State rests, the defense will move to dismiss the murder charge and enter a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the State failed to present a prima facie case.

The test sJudge Nelson will apply in deciding that motion requires her to assume for the purpose of deciding the motion that all of the evidence introduced during the State’s case-in-chief and all reasonable assumptions that can be drawn from that evidence are true. Given those assumptions, she must decide if a rational trier of fact (i.e., a juror) could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree.

Expect Judge Nelson to deny the defense motion.

After she denies that motion, the defense will have to decide whether to present any evidence. I believe sufficient evidence of self-defense has come in through the defendant’s statements to support instructing the jury on self-defense. Therefore, the defendant will not have to testify to get that instruction and the defense could rest without calling any witnesses.

Will the defendant testify?

As I commented last night,

The combination of the SPD photographs that show no significant injuries to the defendant’s face and head and the absence of any of the defendant’s blood and DNA on Trayvon Martin’s fingernails and his hoodie sweatshirt, particularly the sleeves and cuffs, put the lie to the defendant’s story.

Trayvon Martin did not hit the defendant repeatedly or slam his head against a cement sidewalk because, if he had done so, he would have been covered with the defendant’s blood and DNA.

Therefore, the defendant was never reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

Trayvon Martin’s fingernails and sleeves would have been drenched in blood, if the defendant’s story were true. The argument that the rain washed away the defendant’s DNA, and/or the packaging of the damp hoodie in a plastic biohazard bag degraded all of the defendant’s DNA is specious because Trayvon’s blood and DNA were detected.

There is no question that the defendant followed Trayvon Martin first in his vehicle and then on foot with the intent of preventing this “asshole from getting away.”

There is no question that Trayvon Martin attempted to run away from the defendant.

There is no question that the defendant had two opportunities to identify himself but decided not to do so.

There is no question that the defendant ignored the dispatcher’s warning to cease from following Trayvon Martin when he told the dispatcher to have the officer en route call him for a location and he subsequently pursued Trayvon Martin into the grassy area behind the townhomes south of the T intersection.

Given his unambiguously expressed intent to prevent Trayvon Martin from getting away, there is no doubt that he confronted him when he found him.

The defendant’s hostile pursuit makes him the aggressor and he cannot legitimately claim that he acted in self-defense, unless Trayvon Martin resisted his effort to detain him with deadly force and he could not withdraw from the encounter.

The defense claim that Trayvon Martin was “armed” with a cement sidewalk is controverted by Dr. Rao’s testimony and the DNA evidence.

I think the jury will likely find the defendant guilty, if he does not testify.

Yet, I cannot imagine how he can talk himself out of the mess he has created.

He has the right to decide whether to testify.

We will have to wait and see what he decides to do.

I am not expecting the defense to present any other evidence, with the possible exception of calling a family member(s) to identify the defendant as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek.

I suspect the jury will not believe them since the defendant was never in any danger and the shriek abruptly ends with the gunshot that silenced Trayvon Martin forever.

______________________________________________________________

Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.


%d bloggers like this: