For example, Serino asks him about why he got out of the car and that his statement about getting out of the car to get an address didn't match the tape.  While the tape surely seems to show that he got out of the car as Martin took off running, the tape also shows that Zimmerman got out of the car after the dispatcher makes a request for information "which way is he running".  Zimmerman doesn't appear to recall this question from the dispatcher in his interviews, but now that he's heard the tape, he'll likely say, oh yea, now I remember him asking that, so I got out to see which way Martin was running, then when I lost sight of him, I decided to walk to get an address because I was asked for one earlier and I could give that to the police so they could locate me when they arrived.

The angle of entry is nearly straight in.  The shot was fired with the muzzle of the gun in or nearly in contact with Martin's outerwear.

I know of no SPD contention that the forensic evidence of the shot is inconsistent with Zimmerman's account of the situation at the moment he fired the shot.

Zimmerman's account has Martin separating after the shot is fired, I think a sort of "sitting up," and then, I think, Zimmerman isn't exactly clear on the details of how positions reversed to have Zimmerman holding Martin spread eagle, face down.

GZ refers to TM as "the suspect" throughout his written statement (ironically called "suspect statement" by the police).

He says he tried to restrain TM after he shot him, holding his hands away from his body.  I'm pretty sure that's a contradiction with the first witness and the police who both said the body was on its stomach with hands under him.

Apparently that key distinction is not recognized by many legal pundits in this case.

The problem is that Zimmerman never expected the events, as they were unfolding, to be of such importance that he had to concentrate on every detail and remember it exactly. So, to "catch" him for murder, because his statement is not as "precise" as someone (antagonistic to him) may "like," does not mean too much in the normal give and take of variances an honest witness can have in real life.

Here is a key part of Zimmerman's statement:

"The suspect once again disappeared between the back of some houses. The dispatch once again asked for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispatch asked me for a description and the direction the suspect went. I told the dispatch I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign & the direction the suspect went. The dispatch told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was in route. As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said "you got a problem" I said "no" the suspect said "you do now"."

So he does remember a jumble of events that occurred around the same time (that is the way the human mind operates) that when all pieced together, fits most if not all of the dispatcher tape. Indeed, expecting him to remember with 100% accuracy is not reasonable -- and there are innumerable studies on human memory and witness that would back up that conclusion. We have the exact tape and, obviously Zimmerman is not expected to have a tape recorder in his mind.

For example, he says in the statement: "I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispatch asked me for a description and the direction the suspect went. I told the dispatch I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign & the direction the suspect went."

So all he says above, is consistent with the goals of: a) following (after leaving his car) to try to keep the suspect, who disappeared, in sight; b) getting an exact street address that could be usable by the police; and c) giving a visual description of the direction the suspect went that would also be usable by the police when they arrived. I see no problems whatsoever with that testimony.

I have never seen an autopsy report that didn't include photographs, especially of a gunshot wound.

Florida sheilds autopsy photos from public release. They will not be viewed until the trial and even then probably won't be released to the media.

I think it depends on whether the ME and firearms examiner say this is consistent with a contact wound.

The FDLE Firearms Lab report states the gunshot is consistent with contact range. The report can be found on page 120 of this packet. They tested this using samples of Martin's clothing and used Zimmerman's firearm, magazine and ammunition.

What does the forensic examination of Zimmerman's gun reveal?  Is there any of Martin's blood or tissue on the gun?

We know from reading the Police Report that GZ was wearing an "inside the waistband" hip holster (IWB). Here's a brief clip which illustrates a similar holster, worn in the approximate position indicated by George Zimmerman (5 o'clock position).

The question becomes obvious. If Martin was sitting astride Zimmerman's waist/hips in the mounted position (at roughly center of mass) with knees bent, could he see Zimmerman's weapon located at the "5 o'clock" even if he glanced down? Even with GZ's jacket elevated above his waistband? Zimmerman suggests that Martin saw the weapon and reached for it. Speculative: How do you accomplish that if you're sitting on it?

Also they spent very little time trying to reenact the struggle that led to the shooting.  The only thing we know for certain is exactly where the body ended up. Why didn't they try to elicit the sequence of events that got it there from where they stopped walking?

Serino opines that Martin had a right to perceive Zimmerman reaching into his pocket as a threat, under the circumstances.  I can imagine that being justification for a punch in the snoot, or a bear hug, or some other use of force to get Zimmerman to show his hands and relent in any threat of force.  And I can imagine that the first blow could have killed Zimmerman - hit his head on a rock or something, and a sort of "freak" injury resulting in death.  Martin would be able to argue that he perceived a threat, acted on it, and then held fire pending Zimmerman's reaction.  He probably would not be charged with battery.  But that same "reach in the pocket" perceived threat doesn't justify a 10 second beat down, let alone a longer one.

If Zimmerman sought a confrontation, why would he wait until Martin got out of sight (ran out of sight, if you believe the NEN call) to get out of his truck?  If Zimmerman sought a confrontation, he had plenty of opportunities to obtain one, like when Martin was near his truck, or circling his truck, or when he spies Martin (he says) in Taafe's yard.  Why wait until "the guy" is out of sight, to go for a confrontation?

Mojo56: Note that if given a free path the shell casing would be ejected some distance from where it was fired.  Depending on the gun, both design and the particular one, anywhere from somewhat forward to right back in the shooters face (my carry gun had the latter problem until some very careful filing of the ejector fixed it).

marvc: I have no idea, but Zimmerman can "take the stand" without being subject to cross examination at the trial simply by introducing all his contemporaneous statements (which include some hostile cross examination) ... and since they were made right after the shooting, I at least would give them stronger weight than anything he might say many months later.

Note to all: we're talking about deer shot with rifles, which deliver smaller diameter bullets at significantly higher velocites and energy.  

Mitch Guthman: You're welcome, primary sources are always to be preferred.

8. I think if we (that is you and I) had a better knowledge of anatomy we'd roughly know the angles.  The examiner specifies exactly where the bullet  entered, several points along its path, and roughly where it ended up (and of course it doesn't follow a perfectly straight line once in the body).

Dilbert By Day: as it turns out, that's where and how I carry my concealed handgun.  And this incident has prompted me to think about the consequences of ending up on my back before I could draw it.

I believe the answer to your question, and mine as to why it took so long for him to shoot, is found in Zimmerman's written report:

I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continued to yell "Help." As I slid, the suspect covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm....

It sounds like he, in "sliding", also rolled his body.  That would be necessary for him to draw his weapon, and therefore is also consistant with his deduction that Martin saw the weapon after he moved.

    "Two weeeks 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 og 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".

DeeDee--interview with de la Rionda:

"He say he ain't gonin run cause he say he right by his father's house"

So, as a casual observer this indicates to me that the SPD believe GZ's story and still believed it as late as 2 April.  Zimmerman is arrested only 10 days later by IMO a politically motivated Special Prosecutor who had no intention of finding anything else to the contrary.

DeeDee's remarks indicate that TM had made it back or close to his destination which in my mind destroys the notion that there is a continuing "chasing" or "persuing" of TM by GZ.

Two more points: Gilbreath ( who signed the PC Affidavit) on the stand 4/20 states that he has "nothing" to contradict GZ's assertion that he was walking back to his truck.

Brandy Green's bizarre comment made to Fox 35 TV on 2/27--"I live other there, he was sitting on the porch and this man killed him".  NEVER explained and NEVER brought up on any talking head chat shows that I've seen.  Did someone ELSE see TM sitting on Brandy's porch talking to DeeDee on the phone and then tell BG this?  Seems logical to me.

Keep in mind that the burden is on the state to prove its case (murder, here), not on the defendant to prove he is innocent.  The state must introduce the evidence to establish each element of the charged crime.  Hence, saying nothing to the state deprives the state of evidence.

Most people agree that Zimmerman was foolish to trust the state; and in hindsight, he probably sees the error of his ways.  Some of what he said is helpful to him, and his openness may be, in the long run, a net benefit.  But, look at how the state and the press are focused on his inconsistencies as evidence of guilt; and even some making the case that his consistency on some points is evidence of guilt.  Just the same, if he'd said nothing, there would be arguments that his silence amounts to evidence of guilt.  Serino was quite accurate in his prediction that Zimmerman would be held under a microscope.

1. It's important to keep in mind that -- during his long phone call -- GZ did not envision a violent confrontation. He was not slyly lying to the dispatcher to set up an alibi for a crime that he covertly wished to commit. He was simply relaying information as accurately as he could, and dealing with the inherent problem of talking to a distant person who could not see what was happening.

2. GZ never intended to chase down, confront, tackle or arrest TM. As Cboldt has noted above, it would have gone against his lengthy history of previous interactions. From beginning to end of his call, he only wanted a cop. In addition, he made it clear that he only wanted the cop for the purposes of a talk/interview with TM. GZ never falsified TM's activities into a crime for which an arrest was warranted. The suggestion that he would suddenly want to impulsively tackle TM on first sight in order to apprehend him -- while lacking a fundamental basis for it -- makes zero sense.

3. While in the car, there were three phases. At first, GZ was just an observer. However, when TM walked toward his car, he began to worry about TM's intentions. There might have been some "fear", but most likely it was less than that. Finally, once TM left his immediate vicinity, his previous experiences with runners kicked in. GZ's change of  mentality is clear on the recording. He displays more disgust than concern. After interpreting the dispatcher's two questions as a request, he groused as he got out of the vehicle and hustled for about 5 seconds before the dispatcher realized the foul-up. It was about as much time as was needed to get to the "T." Once queried about getting out of the  car, GZ was honest with his reply and remained cooperative throughout the rest of the call.

4. I am not willing to concede that TM was not up to no good. Just because there was no evidence of having committed a crime does not eliminate the possibility that he was snooping around for trouble. He had a history of skirting the law, and probably deserved a juvenile record with what has been documented (especially with property for which he had no explanation). On the night in question, he truly could have been casing properties (including George's vehicle mistakenly). So to castigate GZ's suspicions offhand as being invalid (or as evidence of his penchant to aggressively profile) is a bit much.

1. TM didn't circle his car.  In the re-enactment he says TM rounded the T and then came back out to circle his car before returning to the area between the houses.  He says he told the dispatcher as this happened.  In the interview, however, he says that he was parked at the club house when TM "[is] coming to check me out".  Said checking out is determined to mean walking past his truck (as he would on his natural path anyway) and looking at him from about a car length away.

2. He wasn't punched where he said he was.  In the re-enactment he says he has passed the T and is somewhat west of it when TM closes the distance and he is punched where he stood.  In other accounts he has said that the blow knocked him to the ground.  But in the re-enactment he describes some shoving and stumbling that takes them down TM's path before they hit the ground about three pavements down past the tree.  So either he is punched to the ground where they went down and not at the top of the T, or he was punched at the top of the T but did not go down.

3. His clearest, most accurate, and most consistent memory appears to be of being told "we don't need you to do that" when asked if hew was following TM. It seems important to him to show that he was not following him.  This may be why he initially claimed that he only got out of his truck to find a street sign -- which could have most quickly been found by driving his truck down the street he was on until he saw one, and is contradicted by his NEN call.

If these remarks are accurate then it is beyond question that TM had the opportunity to return to his house but chose NOT to.  He is the one who wanted to confront Zimmerman and inquire about why he's looking at him.

Brandy's statement (with Tracy right beside her) is in no way a "I can see him now" statement. She says he was killed on her porch, period.  I've seen that tape on YT many times.  There is no question that she thinks Trayvon was shot on her porch.

Brandy's statement (with Tracy right beside her) is in no way a "I can see him now" statement. She says he was killed on her porch, period.  I've seen that tape on YT many times.  There is no question that she thinks Trayvon was shot on her porch.

And I notice that you didn't remark on Serino's remarks which obviously support Zimmerman.

Zimmerman jumped out of his car as soon as TM ran.
Sure TM could have made it Brandy's but he didn't
Zimmerman was running down the T too. TM would have  had 20 seconds of GZ at least hearing him run down the path if not "looking for a street sign" in the back yard area..

When Brandy made that statement she and Tracy were looking at the shooting scene so no, she does not think Trayvon was killed on the porch.

@0:40 in this video interview Tracy Martin states "I knew he was going to the back of the house, he was sitting out there"

In his interview, given in response to the released Zimmerman statement and videos, he says the dispatcher told Zimmerman to not "PURSUE" Martin. The word "pursue" is a word that implies "to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc."

That word usage (of "pursue") is a lot different from the word "follow" used as in to "follow" for purposes of again trying to get the suspect in sight (to report to the dispatcher) or to see an address to report to the dispatcher ... or a combination of the two.

No wonder Crump keeps lying by falsely saying the dispatcher used the word "pursue" -- to falsely imply the dispatcher believed Zimmerman was out to "to overtake, capture, kill, etc." Martin (when the dispatcher was only trying to protect Zimmerman from a fleeing suspect).

And that's the problem.

He announces that Martin's running at around 7:11:40 PM, by 7:11:48 PM you hear the Honda's door slam behind him, then you hear him jogging or running, which brings on the whole "are you following?" "we don't need you to" exchange, which ends with his "OK" at 7:12:04 PM and the running sounds stop at 7:12:14 PM.

He should be right around the "T" at that point, with Trayvon not in sight.

That leaves another 3:16 until the struggle starts.

The phone call went on for another 1:25, until 7:13:39 PM.

Even if he stands still for the rest of the call (when he could be going east to get that address he's so bent on obtaining), he's still got another 1:51 during which it seems he only managed to go east to Retreat View and back to the "T".

Does it take almost 2 minutes to walk from the average townhouse backyard to the front and back again?

And if he's going to go back to the Honda on Twin Trees, why does he need to give them an address from Retreat View?

He could have just driven around there, checking for Martin at the south end of Twin Trees near the back entrance and driven north back up the east leg of Retreat View to where he wanted to get an address and then he would have been parked at the address he was going to give them when they called back.

And I am wondering about an earlier remark by cylinder regarding lung tissue on blood trails. TM was shot with the pistol purportedly pressed against his chest/clothing or very nearly so. I was not aware that one could hunt deer so carefully such that one could be able to place the rifle barrel against the chest of the deer. As one who has hunted deer for years and who has a few times had to track a wounded animal, following a blood trail can be very arduous and difficult. I agree that it might be possible to find some internal body tissue on the blood trail at or extremely near the site where the animal as shot; I've never seen one where the animal continued to leave tissue, lung or otherwise, behind on the blood trail as it tried to run away from the point of initial bullet contact.  

Yes, for example. He looks for an address on Retreat View Circle, (the only street in the retreat he claims to know by name, after living in RTL for three years, which has only three streets? He manages the Neighborhood Watch and recruits block captains, but does not collect their addresses or looks on the map to see were they all live? He only knows his own street the outer circle? Is unable to learn the other two roads in RTL?)

And this address he needs to give to the arriving officers, while his car is parked on a completely different street, and he doesn't know where the guy has gone? Since he looks both for an address somewhere else and intends to return to his car to await the officers?

Absolutely logical.

He was in fact slightly exasperated with the dispatcher that he wanted a precise address, keeping him on the line for so long. While he clearly told him that the "suspect" just headed towards the back entrance, remember? The back entrance mysteriously disappeared from his narrative. Now all he needs is an arbitrary number on RVC. Since it is so absolutely difficult to simply say, they come straight in through the front entrance and turn left after the clubhouse. My car is parked on the other side facing them, it's a white Toyota pickup truck. It shortly before the road take the turn to the right heading towards the back entrance.

But he clearly remembers the incident on 02/02/12 when he in fact called back and gave another address, but in that case it was Frank Taaffe's house. On 26/02/12 that is exactly were his narrative starts.

Problem is, in that case the black guy with the "bomber hat, seems to have moved on to Frank Taaffe's house or maybe used the cut through nearby, because Taaffe always keeps his house unlocked? Now he simply walks over to Retreat View Circle gets an arbitrary address in front of his nose and then intends to return to his car on Twin Trees to await the officers?

We don't know enough to judge Zimmerman's actions between the time he was down with Martin on top of him to when he shot.  If he has no training in martial arts, he might not have been very effective.  Surprise was against him, and it takes many people a lot of time to cycle to effective "fight or flight"; Nathan Bedford Forrest's principle of "keeping up the skeer" certainly applies here.  I get the impression/assume he was somewhat stunned by the initial blow to his head and probably more by the subsequent ones, you yourself quote him on that, a head that "feels like it's going to explode" will not likely be thinking the best.

His position put him at a potentially fatal disadvantage ... in fact, you should try with a friend duplicating the positions to see how much and how well he could each reach Martin.  By his own account he appears to have focused on getting out from under Martin, which sounds like a very good idea, but would require use of at least one of his arms.  Perhaps he tried to use the other to block Martin as best he could.

On a more serious note,  I skimmed through a lot of this but I don't see it as being worth the effort that people here are putting in until the physical evidence, lab reports and autopsy are all available so that it is possible to determine whether Zimmerman's statements are consistent with the physical evidence.  I think that's when things will get interesting and we will see whether there's any basis for the 2nd degree murder charge.

There are some inconsistencies, but nothing significant that I can tell.  Mainly there's a poor recollection of his NEN call (where the NEN basicly said "Let me know if he does anything else", GZ says the NEN was asking for more details where TM was going than the dispatcher actually was, stuff like that).

When it comes to the actual confrontation and fight, I think is telling very closely matches what witnesses heard and saw.  George saw W6 come out of the house and say he was going to call 911 for instance, and IIRC their testimonies matched up before George would have had a chance to know what W6 would have told police.

To me it suggested GZ remembering him circling the truck but putting events out of order.

Matching it up with the 911 call, I think Trayvon would have circled the truck then went down the cut-through, and GZ in the re-enactment forgot to tell the police that part, before telling how TM moved down the cut-through, then remembered it and tried to explain.

We have temporarily removed the video above from the server, to get access, please use the Media Request form. The Reenactment video is currently streaming on WFTV.com

She told investigators that she heard Trayvon ask, "What are you following me for?" The reply she heard was, "What are you doing around here?" The last words she said she heard Trayvon say after she said he was pushed or bumped were "Get off, get off."

Critics of GZ ignored the most likely reason which is cost, GZ explains this in the tape to a monitor.

In August of 2011 my neighbors house was broken into while she was home with her infant son. The intruders attempted to attack ker and her child; however, SPD reported to the scene of the crime and the robber fled. My wife saw the intruders running from the home and became scared of the rising crime within our neighborhood. I and my neighbor formed a "Neighborhood Watch Program." We were instructed by SPD to call the non-emergency line if we saw anything suspicious and 911 if we saw a crime in progress.

Tonight, I was on my way to the grocvery store when I saw a male approximatly 5'11'' to 6'2' casually walking in the rain looking into homes. I pulled my vehicle over and called SPD non-emergency phone number, I told the dispatcher what I had witnesses, the dispatcher took note of my location and the suspect fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk. As the dispatcher was asking me for the exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness and circled my vehicle. I could not hear if he said anything. The suspect once again disappeared between the back of some houses. The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispacther asked me for a description and the direction the suspct went. I told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign and the direction the suspect was. The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.

As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, "You got a problem?" I said "No." The suspect said "You do now."

As I looked(?) and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled "Help" several times. The suspect told me "Shut the f*ck up" and I tried to sit up right. The suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell, "Help." Each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continued to yell "Help." As I slid, the suspect covered my  mouth and nose and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say "You're gonna die tonight motherf*cker." I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said "You got me."

At this point I slid out from underneath him and got on top of the suspect holding his hands away from his body. An onlooker appeared and asked me if I was OK. I said "No." He said, "I'm calling 911." I said "I don't need you to call 911. I already called them. I need you to help me restrain this guy." At this point a SPD officer arrived and asked, "Who shot him?" I said, "I did," and I placed my hands on top of my head and told the officer where on my person my firearm was holstered. The officer handcuffed me and disarmed me. The officer then placed me in the back of vehicle.

Feel free to use, publish, edit, mock, etc without attribution...

Contrary to what you report CBS saying, his lungs didn't fill with blood, the pleural cavities filled with blood, of course collapsing the lungs.  I think that would take a little while.

The only way I could think of how it ended up on the sidewalk is if GZ was trying to apprehend TM and grab onto him ("apprehend" type actions/movements).  Instead of grabbing him squarely, he grabbed the bag (possibly bag with can inside of it) and it got pulled out as TM ran (or walked) a little further.

[Perhaps this is where Dee Dee heard "Get off.  Get off."?]

I would be interested in hearing what others think re how the 711 bag was removed from TMs pocket.

----------

Re the ear buds mentioned in other comments: I would think if TM was pushed or shoved hard enough, the ear buds would fall out of place.  (Not so sure they would necessarily fall if TM did the shoving.)  If they fall towards the ground (not sure how long the cords are) but I would think Dee Dee would be able to hear the grass in the sense of/ due to TM/GZ in motion, walking on the grass.  Additionally, I don't see any real meaning if the ear buds were found in TM's pockets.  Once they fell, it seems reasonable he would put them in his pocket so they wouldn't get damaged (as opposed to his planning to attack GZ).

My experience with cell phones is they are fairly sensitve to sound.  

----------------

I've never seen one where the animal continued to leave tissue, lung or otherwise, behind on the blood trail as it tried to run away from the point of initial bullet contact.

Hrmm...we're probably getting somewhat off topic, but next time you are tracking and you run across foamy or bright pink blood, take a second to look through it. You will sometimes find little (or sometimes not so little) peices of spongy lung tissue. It's not ejecta, it usually comes out of the mouth. You can also find the same if you closely examine the carcass once it's found.

Thanks very much for the report which I glanced  at during dinner.  It seems very incomplete, particularly about the fatal wound which seem to have received only a limited description.  Also, there were no photographs of the body and in particular there were no photographs of the fatal wound prior to it being explored, no description of what was found in the wound when it was explored and no photographs of the various stages of exploration.  These should be a part of the report.  I have never seen an autopsy report that didn't include photographs, especially of a gunshot wound.

Two things that jumped out at me during my quick reading of the report:  

1.  If I read it correctly, the fatal wound is surrounded by a fairly tight pattern of soot and stippling (I believe the report is indicating a spread of about 2" x 2").  Strictly from memory, I think this might suggest that the fatal bullet was probably fired from a fairly close range but maybe not a contact wound.

But does that help Zimmerman or send him to prison?  I don't know.  I think it depends on whether the ME and firearms examiner say this is consistent with a contact wound.  If they do, then he's probably home free because the physical evidence would be corroborating him.  

If not, then we probably have a much better idea of why the DA filed 2nd degree murder.  

2.  We now know that there was no exit wound and we also know why.   The fatal bullet apparently struck bone, fragmented and none of the fragments had the correct direction and/or sufficient kinetic force to exit Martin's body.  We won't know what this means until we have the report of the firearms examiner, who will presumably be making calculations and running tests  using similar weapons and similar ammunition (from the same batch, if he can find it).  The report may help us to understand where Zimmerman was in relation to Martin at the moment the fatal shot was fired.

Some remaining questions (off the top of my head---does anybody have the answers?):

1.  We know from the autopsy report that some gunshot residue reached Martin's body.  What else do we know about the pattern of stippling/residue and what does it tell us about the range from which Zimmerman fired?  

2.  What do we know about the wound itself?  The autopsy report is not as detailed as I would have expected about the surface of Martin's body.  I assume that a pathologist trying to figure out the range would be more interested in the shape of the wound and whether there was any stretching or tearing of the skin.  

3.  What is the condition of Martin's skin near the wound?  Were his chest hairs singed?  Was his skin also burned?  

4.  Does the ME's use of the terms "stippling"  and "soot" indicate that the particles of residue were not driven deeply into the skin as one might expect for a contact wound or even a near-contact shot?  (Again, finding a TL reader who is a forensic pathologist would be helpful).

5.  What materials were driven or deposited into the wound and were the materials found consistent with a contact or near-contact wound?

6.  What does the forensic examination of Zimmerman's gun reveal?  Is there any of Martin's blood or tissue on the gun?

7.  What does an examination of Martin's clothing reveal about the range from which the fatal bullet was fired?  The muzzle flash of a gun pressed hard against the victim's body generates a lot of heat---clothing is often burned or melted.  Do we know if that happened?  What does expert analysis of the textile fabrics (the T-shirt and the hooded sweatshirt) tell us about the range?

8.  I'm too lazy to do this but from the various reconstructions, do we have any idea of  of what the angle of entry was---this seemed unclear from the ME's report.  Do we have expert opinion on what angle would be consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman?  Is the angle of entry rather cursorily depicted in the autopsy report consistent with this?  Does it corroborate Zimmerman or refute him?

I'm more puzzled because it appears TM wasn't killed instantly and yet GZ makes no mention regarding TM's welfare at this point, only that someone help him (GZ) detain the guy until the police arrived.  GZ came across as being very cold (-hearted) to me.  

I also noticed during Officer Singleton's interrogation of GZ that he still believed TM to be aged "early 20s/ late teens".  "Early 20s" is not close in age to 28 (GZs age), imo; there's a big difference between a 20 yo and a 25 yo and still a 28 yo.  If I remember correctly, there's a lot of growth in each of these stages, even year by year.

I've not yet listened to all the other statements but does he eventually say in any of his statements (as he would later claim at the bond hearing that) he thought TM was close in age to himself (GZ)?

First of all, I was highly irritated by the forensic examination, especially concerning TM's body, but this was my first report. I think, at least concerning the documents we have so far, they only looked for bloodstains on TM's and GZ's shirts/jackets. No forensics concerning the gunshot traces, that I can remember.

The Gun - at least one, two, three
If I remember well Jeralyn considered them supportive of Zimmerman's narrative. She will forgive me, if I err. I am doubtful and admittedly thought that our forensics would be much better, but there you go:

page 105f discovery (Zimmerman_discovery.pdf:

DMS - 21A - grip
DMS - 21B - trigger
DMS - 21C - slide
DMS - 21D - holster

grip "chemical indications for presence of blood ... demonstrated at least two individuals"
DNA profile consistent with GZ, TM is excluded.

trigger "Due to ... limited nature of DNA ... data not interpretable."

slide "Due to ... limited DNA results ... data insufficient for inclusion purposes. Results consistent with ... presence of at least one male individual."
No determination of if GZ or TM.

holster "... presence of at least three individuals. A complete DNA profile for the major contributor could be determined.
...major DNA profile is consistant with ... profile of" G
... DNA profile for minor contributor(s) could not be determined.
No determination can be made regarding the possible contributions of" TM

The evidence used to establish distance between the gun muzzle and the skin is altered when clothing is interposed between the gun muzzle and the skin.  

Your No.7: Page 122 of the 183 page document dump conclude that the sweatshirt and hoodie have evidence of a contact shot.

You didn't ask, yet, but Page 124 - no gunpowder residue on Zimmerman's outerwear

This is not at all as I remember it. He points to the houses on the left on Twin Trees, where he supposedly parked his car, which indeed don't face the street. What about the houses on the right, are they facing the street with their backyard too? But this happened in Twin Trees. I didn't understand at all, since at least the house at the corner next to the cut through faces with the garages and thus front Twin Trees. So why walk all the way to Retreat View Circle?

And again, what for, if not to search for TM to give a more precise number for his location, as he did on 02/02/12? And that incident is as vividly on his mind as it is on mine for longer now.

It's not where his car is parked, and he says he intended to return to his car. Thus it must be about Trayvon. Problem is he saw him walk down the T, and in the re-enactment he suggested he simply choose the house straight ahead on the other side of RVC.

What for?

I need earphones for the Serino interview.

Lina Inverse:

page 122 (Zimmerman_discovery.pdf)

Path of the projectile: Skin, left anterior 5th intercostal space, pericadial sac, right ventricle of heart, right lower lobe of lung.

... right lower lobe of lung with bilateral pleural hemorrhage

*****************
Would Martin have been satisfied by only rendering him unconscious and very possibly crippling him in the process?

Yes, tonight you die, MF. Motive?

..............................................

marvc:

Thanks for the "homie" clarification.  Interesting although urban dictionary has this about cracker:

Originally the white slave driver because he would "crack" the whip, hence the noun cracker.
Yo homey pick the cotton faster cuz here comes ole Mr.Cracker with his whip!

Not that I believe much of what GZ tells us  Trayvon said. What about the verbal clash? I must have missed his explanation.

.................................................

You got me

Come to think about it? George Zimmerman's Trayvon Martin is quite loquacious, up to threatening to kill him. But what does Georgie actually say, besides playing the Master of Feint?

I have no problem!

I have no idea, but Zimmerman can "take the stand" without being subject to cross examination at the trial simply by introducing all his contemporaneous statements (which include some hostile cross examination) ... and since they were made right after the shooting, I at least would give them stronger weight than anything he might say many months later.

Unless Florida has some weird rules of evidence, Zimmerman would not be able to introduce his own prior statements without testifying.  The prior statements are hearsay.  I certainly don't know of any way that Zimmerman could introduce them on his own if the prosecution elects not to use them.  

What's particularly relevant to Florida, according to Wikipedia referencing a state report that's a dead link, is that Florida had 843,463 licensed permit holders as of July 31, 2011.  That's 4.4% of the population based on the census of the same year, and a higher proportion of the male population.  With shall issue being the law for a quarter century, it's entirely mainstream in the state.

I would also add to people who think it's "off" to carry a gun when you're going to a store at night ... well, those of us who carry don't have the same view.

Speaking only for myself, I simply carry every time I step out the door, unless I'm going to a prohibited location.  Perhaps it was because I was a Boy Scout, "Be Prepared" and all that.  I live in a city where there's so little violent crime I'm probably only at risk when I go to the bank (although it has been noted that Zimmerman might have planned to go to an ATM before or after his trip to the store), but I'd rather have the gun and never need it than not have it when I desperately need it.

This is also probably colored by my college experience, where I was next to several very high crime rate areas.  Serious situational awareness plus I think projecting a "you don't want to attack me" attitude avoided a handful of incidents for me, but I had friends who got mugged and/or assaulted, and it has been sufficiently bad at times that a student was killed in broad daylight right in front of the main library (by a local white high school sociopath, for what that's worth).  And this despite a very serious, well staffed and professional campus police force.

As for Zimmerman's behavior that night prior to the confrontation with Martin, I'm of mixed feelings about it.  His post-shooting experience is a classic, albeit extreme example of why many if not most concealed  carriers avoid doing that sort of thing.  On the other hand, I don't live in a city with a really "bad part of town" and with that much violent crime, or a neighborhood "under siege" after the start of the Great Recession, and I'm loathe to "abandon the streets to the criminals".

Also, how would the video be hearsay?  I don't know, IANAL and a little time with Wikipedia did not entirely clear this up, but, it would seem to me that it speaks for itself, and I doubt the prosecution would deny it was him in it.  Also, how is his written statement hearsay when it has a section below his signature saying "Sworn to and subscribed before me the [date], a signature and below it "Law Enforcement Officer or Notary"?

I gather from my quick reading of Wikipedia that it  depends on what the introduction of the statement is intended to do and I can see how he might be forced to defend it in detail; I just don't know how this sort of thing works and hope I never have to learn all this for real, although a pointer to a reference that makes this more clear would be appreciated.

It seems something more scientific was warranted than GZ doing a walk-through/talk through with investigators?

DeeDee's remarks indicate that TM had made it back or close to his destination which in my mind destroys the notion that there is a continuing "chasing" or "persuing" of TM by GZ.

Two more points: Gilbreath ( who signed the PC Affidavit) on the stand 4/20 states that he has "nothing" to contradict GZ's assertion that he was walking back to his truck.

Brandy Green's bizarre comment made to Fox 35 TV on 2/27--"I live other there, he was sitting on the porch and this man killed him".  NEVER explained and NEVER brought up on any talking head chat shows that I've seen.  Did someone ELSE see TM sitting on Brandy's porch talking to DeeDee on the phone and then tell BG this?  Seems logical to me

First of all GZ saw Trayvon LEAVE the back yard area and walk toward GZ's car. Trayvon then ran back toward the backyard area with GZ running behind him. TM did not have time to make it to Brandy's. He emerged from the shadows/busehes so it would seem he hid there.
Dee Dee would have no way of discerning
how close "close" was anyway.

I suppose a reconstruction wasn't done, because the police felt the squishy evidence in hand was sufficient to reach a legal conclusion.  It may be that the squishyness of the evidence doesn't admit a reconstruction.  The FBI couldn't determine whose voice was yelling "help," just to pick one element that seems to evade reconstruction.

That's precisely [i]why[/i] it is hearsay, and ordinarily not admissible.  

"Hearsay" is any statement made by someone who is not in court to testify, under oath, and be cross-examined at that time.  

There is a long list of hearsay "exceptions", but every exception shares the characteristic of having something about it that would tend to make it more reliable and trustworthy than just any statement.

Zimmerman does not have to testify to anything at trial, and if he chooses not to testify, no one can hold that against him or draw any adverse inference -- but unless the prosecution chooses to introduce the statements that make out his defense as admissions in support of their case, that is going to be the only possible way he can get the jury to hear his story.  

I guess my only quibble relates to this:

There is a long list of hearsay "exceptions", but every exception shares the characteristic of having something about it that would tend to make it more reliable and trustworthy than just any statement.

In that I think contemporaneous statements and the like have more weight than ones made months later.  But that of course doesn't mean, to take this case as an example, that Zimmerman shouldn't be cross examined upon introduction of them.  As cboldt said, "Heresay is disfavored at trial, because it deprives the jury or judge of an opportunity to judge the credibility of the witness, in person."

Although I'll note his comment about regretting talking to the police is complicated; initially, it turned out to be the right thing, the state declined to prosecute.  This of course changed drastically when it became a cause célèbre.

Lina: In that I think contemporaneous statements and the like have more weight than ones made months later.

That's certainly true, but not enough to make the contemporaneous statement qualify as a hearsay exception.  There are two closely related exceptions, called in Florida law "excited utterance" and "spontaneous statement."  An excited utterance is a statement made shortly after an unusual event occurs, while the speaker is still in an excited emotional state.  So if someone runs into a room and screams "Al just shot Bob!" that would be admissible.  A spontaneous statement is a statement made while an unusual event is occurring, by speaker in an excited emotional state.  So if someone in another room screams "Al's fixin' to shoot Bob!" that would be admissible.  I believe the federal rules of evidence allow a statement made while the event is concurring to be admissible even if it isn't made in an excited emotional state.  The idea behind both hearsay exceptions is that the speaker probably won't have time to think through the statement in order to come up with a falsehood.  Obviously, a person giving a statement to the police has time to come up with a story.

Expy: And I believe that a stand-your-ground hearing is also testimonial -- that is, requiring actual witness testimony, not affidavits.

I agree, and cite McDaniel v. State in support.

Nonetheless, in his mind, based on what he was observing, Trayvon running away from him was an admission of guilt and basically validated his claim and with police already on their way, it seemed plausible that keeping a sight on TM for the next few minutes would have allowed to police to swoop in and get to the bottom of this.

Its funny how the mind works sometimes, when faced with a possibly hazardous situation sometimes you simply make bad choices, poor decisions, sacrificing your safety all in name of protecting something you hold dear. For GZ that was in the neighborhood he lived in.

A few years back, late one night my wife awoke me to tell me she thought someone was poking around inside my car out front in the driveway. I peeked around from the upstairs window and vaguely saw some shadows moving about. I had no idea what I saw but regardless ran outside immediately to find several people in a car backing up and making their way out of my driveway.

I started running after the car in hopes of getting a plate number, but realized I didn't have my cell phone with me anyway and that the car was out of my sight before I could get any of license plate number. Returning back to my house, I checked out my car only to find the ignition torn out, sitting on the front seat.

My wife wasn't quite as upset that my car was nearly stolen, more so that I undeniably put myself in harms way by so quickly running outside the house to confront these people.

Not that these two situations are that similar but, when you have an indication that something is awry, sometimes all logic escapes you. In hindsight, I could have been very well beat to death, or shot outside my house in my attempt to "get these bad guys". However that didn't cross my mind at the time.