Photo shows Zimmerman's bloodied head

[J]

It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical social
liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.








http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-tells-trayvon-martins-parents/story?id=16177849#.T5IdeatYt-c





George Zimmerman stunned a Florida court today by taking the stand and
apologizing to the parents of Trayvon Martin, who were sitting in the
courtroom during Zimmerman's bond hearing.


"I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I
thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was
armed or not," Zimmerman said addressing Martin's family directly.


His surprising testimony came the same day that ABC News exclusively
obtained a photograph showing the bloodied back of Zimmerman's head,
which was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed
Martin. The photo could give credence to Zimmerman's claim that Martin
had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.


The exclusive photo obtained by ABC News shows blood trickling down the
back of Zimmerman's head from two cuts. It also shows a possible
contusion forming on the crown of his head. The original police report
that night notes that the back of Zimmerman's head was wet, and that he
was bleeding from the nose and head.


Zimmerman told police that night that he shot and killed the teenager in
self-defense after Martin punched him and pounced on him. Zimmerman told
police that Martin then bashed his head into the concrete sidewalk
during the altercation that took place in the tidy middle-class
development of the Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Fla.

Zimmerman was treated at the scene by paramedics, then cuffed and driven
in a police cruiser to the Sanford police station. He was questioned for
hours and later released. In police surveillance video obtained last
month by ABC News, Zimmerman's wounds are not apparent, and there were
no bandages on his head.


Zimmerman was not admitted to a hospital or given stitches the night of
the incident.


The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not
to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the
scuffle that night, but did hear it. The person recalled seeing Martin's
prostrate body on the wet grass and said the gunpowder burns on Martin's
gray hoodie were clearly visible.


The photographer said that after the shooting, Zimmerman asked the
photographer to call his wife. When the photographer asked him what to
say, Zimmerman blurted out, "Man, just tell her I shot someone."

Investigators have seen the photo.


Testifying today, Zimmerman's father, Robert, a former magistrate, told
the court that the day after Martin was killed he saw injuries his son
suffered.


"His face was swollen quite a bit," Robert Zimmerman said. "There was a
protective cover over his nose, his lip was cut and there were two
vertical gashes on the back of his head."



Click here to view the image. Warning: graphic content.


http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg





--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[William Smith]

On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>
> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical social
> liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>

<....>

>
> http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC logo.
Heck, and how do we know it was Z?
And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
thing, with the gun in his pocket and possibly with the intention
to provoke a fight and kill someone.

[Syd M.]

On Apr 20, 10:48 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> It appears that there is more to this story

Sure there is, bigot.

PDW

[Gray Guest]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in
news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:

We know it's a lie because ABC is secretly conservative.

You people are so pathetic.

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[max headroom]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:

>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical social
>> liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.

>> http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC logo.
> Heck, and how do we know it was Z?
> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
> thing, with the gun in his pocket and possibly with the intention
> to provoke a fight and kill someone.

You want the prosecutor's job?

[max headroom]

Syd M. <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:c2d35098-b636-4064...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

>> It appears that there is more to this story

> Sure there is, bigot.

Yup, plenty of bigots have jumped in, claiming one or the other was the guilty party without
knowledge of all the facts.

[Alaskan Beaver Hunter]

On 4/20/2012 9:48 PM, J wrote:
>
> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
> rabble-rousers are offering.
>

prove it those haven't been doctored by Photo shop.

PROVE IT.

You can't.

--
---
Loon Party: http://www.twitpic.com/8zi369/full

[What DID a Frothy Mixture of Shit do to be associated with Santorum ?]

On 4/20/2012 9:48 PM, J wrote:
>

If the half breed spic would have stayed in his low rider and
preceded to Taco Bell - instead of stalking, and attacking
an innocent teenager, those false, lip stick painted on
wounds would never have had to be created for the obvious faked
and doctored photos.

Boy - Loons are sure gullible.

[Gray Guest]

Alaskan Beaver Hunter <McM...@as.com> wrote in news:4f92a373$0$27296
$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:

So basically you are brain damaged.

[Lookout]

Prove it's relevant. It hasn't been accepted as evidence yet.

Think about it...the police arrived MINUTES after the shooting. And
somehow someone shows up AFTER the shooting and BEFORE the police
arrive, takes a picture and then leaves? And the picture doesn't show
up for over 3 weeks AFTER this became national news and almost 2
months AFTER the shooting?

This doesn't sound just a little odd to you?

[RD Sandman]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in
news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>>
>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical
>> social liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>>
>
> <....>
>
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wma
>> in.jpg
>
> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC logo.
> Heck, and how do we know it was Z?

Well, it was presented by ABC on its morning show. Are you claiming that
the network photoshopped it?

> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
> thing, with the gun in his pocket and possibly with the intention
> to provoke a fight and kill someone.

Which should come out in the trial if that is what occurred. Until then,
you are simply running on conjecture.....if I may put it politely.



--

If it weren't for my lawyer, I still be in prison.
It went a lot faster with two people digging!!

Joe Martin


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

Alaskan Beaver Hunter <McM...@as.com> wrote in news:4f92a373$0$27296
$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:

It's your claim......prove it was.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:igl5p71cdt3acem0k...@4ax.com:

About one minute. The shooting is on 911 audio between 7:16 when the
phone call to Martin from his girlfriend goes dead, and 7:17 when the
police logged in their arrival at the scene. Martin found about 200'
from the backyard of the townhome he was staying at and was pronounced
dead at 7:30.

You sure make up a lot of shit that continually gets shown to be in
error.

And
> somehow someone shows up AFTER the shooting and BEFORE the police
> arrive, takes a picture and then leaves? And the picture doesn't show
> up for over 3 weeks AFTER this became national news and almost 2
> months AFTER the shooting?
>
> This doesn't sound just a little odd to you?

ABC's morning show didn't appear to think so. That is where the photo
first made its appearance in the public view.

[William Smith]

On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> William Smith<smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in
> news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>>>
>>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical
>>> social liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>>>
>>
>> <....>
>>
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wma
>>> in.jpg
>>
>> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
>> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC logo.
>> Heck, and how do we know it was Z?
>
> Well, it was presented by ABC on its morning show. Are you claiming that
> the network photoshopped it?
>

As a matter of fact, ABC did photoshop it - to add its logo and to
compact the picture but that's not important. I am claiming that
we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold the
picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the original
picture.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>

>> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in

>> news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>
>>>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>>>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical
>>>> social liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>
>>> <....>
>
>>>>http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg
>
>>> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
>>> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC logo.
>>> Heck, and how do we know it was Z?
>
>> Well, it was presented by ABC on its morning show.
>> Are you claiming that the network photoshopped it?
>
> As a matter of fact, ABC did photoshop it - to add its logo and to
> compact the picture but that's not important. I am claiming that
> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold
> the picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the original
> picture.
>

Since it is a digital from an Apple iPhone, everyone except the
photographer has a digital copy.

>
>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
>>> thing, with the gun in his pocket and possibly with the intention
>>> to provoke a fight and kill someone.
>

The Third Law of Leftist Debate:
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter
to his preconceived world view, and the more difficult it becomes for
him to refute it without losing face, the chance of him changing his
criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. ∞

>
>> Which should come out in the trial if that is what occurred.
>> Until then, you are simply running on conjecture.....if I may
>> put it politely.
>

Well; there is this from the UK Daily Mail on 12 March:

"The report said that Zimmerman's back was wet and he was covered in
grass as if he had been on the ground. He was bleeding from his nose
and the back of the head, the report said."

"A police officer said he overheard Zimmerman say, 'I was yelling for
someone to help me but no one would help me' while he was being
treated by paramedics."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114152/

[RD Sandman]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in

news:jmvrji$fqt$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> William Smith<smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in
>> news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>>>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical
>>>> social liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <....>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_w
>>>> ma in.jpg
>>>
>>> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
>>> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC
>>> logo. Heck, and how do we know it was Z?
>>
>> Well, it was presented by ABC on its morning show. Are you claiming
>> that the network photoshopped it?
>>
>
> As a matter of fact, ABC did photoshop it - to add its logo and to
> compact the picture but that's not important.

Which is why I didn't mention it. I also don't think that ABC logo is on
the picture itself. I would bet that it was superimposed on the video.

I am claiming that
> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold the
> picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the original
> picture.

True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it. They have
been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC which has been
caught manufacturing or altering evidence.

>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
>>> thing, with the gun in his pocket and possibly with the intention
>>> to provoke a fight and kill someone.
>>
>> Which should come out in the trial if that is what occurred. Until
>> then, you are simply running on conjecture.....if I may put it
>> politely.

[RD Sandman]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ae3cf350-cf5f-44aa...@m13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>>> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in
>>> news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>>
>>>>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>>>>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical
>>>>> social liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>>
>>>> <....>
>>
>>>>>http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_w
>>>>>mai
> n.jpg
>>
>>>> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
>>>> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC
>>>> logo. Heck, and how do we know it was Z?
>>
>>> Well, it was presented by ABC on its morning show.
>>> Are you claiming that the network photoshopped it?
>>
>> As a matter of fact, ABC did photoshop it - to add its logo and to
>> compact the picture but that's not important. I am claiming that
>> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold
>> the picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the original
>> picture.
>>
> Since it is a digital from an Apple iPhone, everyone except the
> photographer has a digital copy.

Actually, so does the photographer. ;)

[Lookout]

Really? Show us.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1nf8p7hressqdtvnp...@4ax.com:

Pay attention to them.

[Perseus]

On Apr 22, 5:14 am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>
> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc>  wrote in
> >>news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> >>> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>
> >>>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
> >>>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical
> >>>> social liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>
> >>> <....>
>

> >>>>http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wm...

did the police made photo documents of these "facts"? Second, has any
forensic doctor wrote a document to prove the wounds of Zimmerman
could not be self inflicted?

All these is talking with sense. Once Zimmerman shot the boy he could
hit his own head on the floor, and rubbed his back over the grass
trying to prove the black boy was attacking him.

I do not believe in silly hypothesis. Either the black boy attacked
Zimmerman, or not. What is indubitable is the black boy was shot and
is dead and buried already.
Has the police ordered the forensic medicine to examine the corpse of
the black boy to write a document with pictures that would prove the
boy was fighting with Zimmerman?

Perseus

[Scout]

"Perseus" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

Have you shown they were?

I see that in your world one is presumed guilty.....

[RD Sandman]

Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

Looks like you have already made up your mind without facts.

[de...@dudu.org]

I've seen all the pictures, and I sure they hell don't see any
injuries whatsoever on his face or back of his head.

[de...@dudu.org]

>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. ?

>>
>> >> Which should come out in the trial if that is what occurred.
>> >> Until then, you are simply running on conjecture.....if I may
>> >> put it politely.
>>
>> Well; there is this from the UK Daily Mail on 12 March:
>>
>> "The report said that Zimmerman's back was wet and he was covered in
>> grass as if he had been on the ground. He was bleeding from his nose
>> and the back of the head, the report said."
>>
>> "A police officer said he overheard Zimmerman say, 'I was yelling for
>> someone to help me but no one would help me' while he was being
>> treated by paramedics."
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114152/
>
>did the police made photo documents of these "facts"? Second, has any
>forensic doctor wrote a document to prove the wounds of Zimmerman
>could not be self inflicted?

Doesn't mean Martin did anything.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>

>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Â am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>

>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Â wrote in

>>>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. â^z

Then you haven't seen all the pictures.....

Another lie for you to document Klaus.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:eis8p7pqcagn21oco...@4ax.com...

Sure he does.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:58:12 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Ā am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Ā wrote in

>>>>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. ā^z

You mean this one you naive dumbass?

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

this is as fake as you can get. Guess we can add first aid to the
huge list of shit you don't know anything about. Scalp wounds split
wide open because of the tighness of the skin on the skull. They lay
wide open and bleed like crazy. Can't see any deep split wounds, can
you? That's because there aren't any. Doesn't even look like real
blood. Blood immediately turns really dark red from exposure to the
air and that's pink. And not nearly enough of it for any sort of deep
scalp wound. So you've been had, again. No doubt after Zimmerman
shot Martin he went and ran home and started concocting a story and
his dad helped him "bloody' his head up some for a cover story. And
if he was hurt that much why would he not have called the police and
get official photos? Pictures of Zimmerman showing up at the police
station showed absolutely no injuries, nor bruises to his face. Or a
bloody nose. You can't even tell that's Zimmerman in that picture. So
guess again dumbass. You right wing nutjobs never have learned
anything about criticial thinking. Don't you think if you shot and
killed someone and were claiming self defense you would have gone
immediately to the police and got official photos of evidence? You
would if you had a brain which once again you proven you don't.

[de...@dudu.org]

Unfortunately for Zimmerman he doesn't have a shred of evidence that
he was assaulted.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 12:44:39 -0500, RD Sandman

I don't watch ABC or NBC news.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:32:43 -0700 (PDT), Perseus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. ?

>>
>> >> Which should come out in the trial if that is what occurred.
>> >> Until then, you are simply running on conjecture.....if I may
>> >> put it politely.
>>
>> Well; there is this from the UK Daily Mail on 12 March:
>>
>> "The report said that Zimmerman's back was wet and he was covered in
>> grass as if he had been on the ground. He was bleeding from his nose
>> and the back of the head, the report said."
>>
>> "A police officer said he overheard Zimmerman say, 'I was yelling for
>> someone to help me but no one would help me' while he was being
>> treated by paramedics."
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2114152/
>
>did the police made photo documents of these "facts"? Second, has any
>forensic doctor wrote a document to prove the wounds of Zimmerman
>could not be self inflicted?
>
>All these is talking with sense. Once Zimmerman shot the boy he could
>hit his own head on the floor, and rubbed his back over the grass
>trying to prove the black boy was attacking him.
>
>I do not believe in silly hypothesis. Either the black boy attacked
>Zimmerman, or not. What is indubitable is the black boy was shot and
>is dead and buried already.
>Has the police ordered the forensic medicine to examine the corpse of
>the black boy to write a document with pictures that would prove the
>boy was fighting with Zimmerman?
>
>Perseus
>

RD likes the tabloid version better.

[William Smith]

On 04/22/2012 12:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> William Smith<smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in
> news:jmvrji$fqt$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> William Smith<smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in
>>> news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>>>>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical
>>>>> social liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <....>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_w
>>>>> ma in.jpg
>>>>
>>>> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
>>>> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC
>>>> logo. Heck, and how do we know it was Z?
>>>
>>> Well, it was presented by ABC on its morning show. Are you claiming
>>> that the network photoshopped it?
>>>
>>
>> As a matter of fact, ABC did photoshop it - to add its logo and to
>> compact the picture but that's not important.
>
> Which is why I didn't mention it. I also don't think that ABC logo is on
> the picture itself. I would bet that it was superimposed on the video.
>

The picture (still image) on ABC site has ABC logo, that was
superimposed by ABC.

> I am claiming that
>> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold the
>> picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the original
>> picture.
>
> True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it.

Probably. Still, neither ABC nor anybody else has a proof that the
picture was not tampered with and that it indeed depicts GZ shortly
after the event.

Only the original picture can be admitted as evidence. That's not enough
though. The photographer will have to take the witness stand and under
the oath describe the circumstances of taking the picture. Without that,
the picture cannot be linked to the case, who knows who is shown? The
prosecution should be able to cross examine the witness. It should also
be able to subpoena the camera, so an expertise will determine whether
the picture is authentic. Each camera has a unique fingerprint.

And in the end it will matter very little. What will matter is the
paramedics' testimony. If they tell about head injuries the picture
does not add much. If they say otherwise it would give credence to
an assumption that the picture shows another man and the witness is
lying.

If the picture is found to be a forgery it will not matter either -
like the fantasies of GZ's dad and the previous lawyer, they do not
matter.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:ia89p71mser6a9si9...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:58:12 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Â am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Â wrote in

>>>>>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. â^z

Ok, then let's see some conclusive proof of that.

Note: Empty assertions from you are not going to cut it.

> Guess we can add first aid to the
> huge list of shit you don't know anything about.

I've done more treatment of wounds than you would dream of, or be able to
stomach.

> Scalp wounds split
> wide open because of the tighness of the skin on the skull.

Sorry, but no they don't. They only split if the dermise is torn all the way
down to the skull. If it's just a surface wound such as most impact wounds
or scraps, then there is no splitting.

> They lay
> wide open and bleed like crazy.

They aren't always wide open, and looks like a fair amount of blood there.

> Can't see any deep split wounds, can
> you?

Doesn't mean they aren't there and shallow wounds would also count since you
claimed " any injuries whatsoever".

> That's because there aren't any.

Yet the photographic evidence seems to indicate there are. I suppose you
think they unless they are large open wounds with blood spurting from them
they really aren't wounds?

> Doesn't even look like real
> blood.

Ah, so now you can tell whether something is blood just by looking at it?

I suppose we no longer need those scientific tests...they can just hire you
to tell them if it's blood just by looking at it.

> Blood immediately turns really dark red from exposure to the
> air and that's pink.

Depends on type of blood, how long it's been exposed, volume, and a number
of other factors.

Some images of wounds....blood is pretty pink...must be fake according to
Dr. Dudu.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Bleeding.jpg

http://s1-02.twitpicproxy.com/photos/large/433190207.jpg

http://0.tqn.com/d/create/1/0/K/J/8/-/MtBikeRoadRash.jpg

http://bayareadogtrainer.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_00281.jpg

> And not nearly enough of it for any sort of deep
> scalp wound.

Really? So a wound to the scalp isn't really a scalp wound unless it's deep?

ROTFMAO....

> So you've been had, again.

Nope, because I see through your excuses and I've seen NOTHING to support
your claim that the photo is fake.

You just don't want to accept that it could actually show wounds because
that is contrary to what you want to believe.

So once again you lied.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:0r89p7hrd6e7usb34...@4ax.com...

Except for the wounds documented by 1st responders, the police report and
photographic evidence.

Oh, and let's not forget the EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS of the fight.

[Lookout]

RD and the rest don't want to wait for verifiable evidence.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:37:33 -0400, "Scout"

We haven't seen those yet.

>and photographic evidence.
>
There is none at this time.

>
>Oh, and let's not forget the EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS of the fight.
>

Of which there are several.
And the accounts HEARD on the phone.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:36:26 -0400, "Scout"

<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>news:ia89p71mser6a9si9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:58:12 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Ā am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Ā wrote in

>>>>>>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. ā^z

Once again I don't have to prove it's a fake. You have to prove it's
real. That's not an official photo, you can tell it's Zimmerman, and
there is no visible laceration in the scalp. It just doesn't look
real.

Depends on how long it's been out of the body moron. Sheesh, take
afucking first aid course.

>
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Bleeding.jpg
>
>http://s1-02.twitpicproxy.com/photos/large/433190207.jpg
>
>http://0.tqn.com/d/create/1/0/K/J/8/-/MtBikeRoadRash.jpg
>
>http://bayareadogtrainer.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_00281.jpg
>
>
>> And not nearly enough of it for any sort of deep
>> scalp wound.
>
>Really? So a wound to the scalp isn't really a scalp wound unless it's deep?

Like I've said, the skin lays wide open an a broad, open laceration,
frequently you can even see the bone. Nothing at all even close to
that in that picture.

>
>ROTFMAO....
>
>
>> So you've been had, again.
>
>Nope, because I see through your excuses and I've seen NOTHING to support
>your claim that the photo is fake.
>
>You just don't want to accept that it could actually show wounds because
>that is contrary to what you want to believe.
>
>So once again you lied.
>

No you keep lying. Just because people are smarter and more educated
than yuu does not mean they are lying. That is only your escape from
reality. Pretty much the ONLY thing you are good at.

[Flint]

On 4/22/2012 9:56 PM, Lookout wrote:

> Of which there are several.
> And the accounts HEARD on the phone.

Which will never be allowed as evidence in a trial aside from the 9/11
call.

--
MFB

[Lookout]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:24:31 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:36:26 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:ia89p71mser6a9si9...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:58:12 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Â am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Â wrote in

>>>>>>>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. â^z

Scout can't admit he's wrong. Even if the photo ISN'T admitted into
evidence he'll still say it's real.

He can't help it..he's a conservative and conservatives lie. It's just
the way they are.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:fii9p751fevsqao74...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:36:26 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:ia89p71mser6a9si9...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:58:12 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Â am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Â wrote in

>>>>>>>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. â^z

Yes, you do. You claimed it was fake, that means the burden of proof is on
you to show that it's fake.

> You have to prove it's
> real.

You are the one that presented it. YOU are the one that would have to prove
ANYTHING about the picture YOU produced.

> That's not an official photo, you can tell it's Zimmerman, and
> there is no visible laceration in the scalp. It just doesn't look
> real.

And we all know how often your assertions prove to be unmitigated BULLSHIT.

Sorry, but you want to prove it's fake, then do so. Otherwise, it's evidence
that likely shows wounds to Mr. Zimmerman.
Evidence that YOU presented.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:44:02 -0400, "Scout"

Add into all the myriads of shit you know nothing about we can now add
legal procedings and truth admissability of evidence. Zimmerman
willl try to enter that and the prosecutor will tear it apart. The
judge will throw it out because there is no chain of evidence. I
other words, Zimmerman won't be able to prove it's him. What, no
hospital records? He supposedly got his head split open and he didn't
go to the ER for stiches? He didn't go turn himself into the police
and get official recorded records entered into evidence for his
defense?

Fuck me you'res stupid.

>
>> You have to prove it's
>> real.
>
>You are the one that presented it. YOU are the one that would have to prove
>ANYTHING about the picture YOU produced.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA

[JohnJohnsn]

On Apr 21, 10:48 am, Lookout <mrlooko...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:48:49 -0700, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical social
>> liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>

>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-tells-trayvon-martins-paren...
>
>>George Zimmerman stunned a Florida court today by taking the stand and
>>apologizing to the parents of Trayvon Martin, who were sitting in the
>>courtroom during Zimmerman's bond hearing.
>
>>"I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I
>>thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was
>>armed or not," Zimmerman said addressing Martin's family directly.
>
>>His surprising testimony came the same day that ABC News exclusively
>>obtained a photograph showing the bloodied back of Zimmerman's head,
>>which was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed
>>Martin. The photo could give credence to Zimmerman's claim that Martin
>>had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.
>
>>The exclusive photo obtained by ABC News shows blood trickling down the
>>back of Zimmerman's head from two cuts. It also shows a possible
>>contusion forming on the crown of his head. The original police report
>>that night notes that the back of Zimmerman's head was wet, and that he
>>was bleeding from the nose and head.
>
>>Zimmerman told police that night that he shot and killed the teenager in
>>self-defense after Martin punched him and pounced on him. Zimmerman told
>>police that Martin then bashed his head into the concrete sidewalk
>>during the altercation that took place in the tidy middle-class
>>development of the Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Fla.
>
>>Zimmerman was treated at the scene by paramedics, then cuffed and driven
>>in a police cruiser to the Sanford police station. He was questioned for
>>hours and later released. In police surveillance video obtained last
>>month by ABC News, Zimmerman's wounds are not apparent, and there were
>>no bandages on his head.
>
>>Zimmerman was not admitted to a hospital or given stitches the night of
>>the incident.
>
>>The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not
>>to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the
>>scuffle that night, but did hear it. The person recalled seeing Martin's
>>prostrate body on the wet grass and said the gunpowder burns on Martin's
>>gray hoodie were clearly visible.
>
>>The photographer said that after the shooting, Zimmerman asked the
>>photographer to call his wife. When the photographer asked him what to
>>say, Zimmerman blurted out, "Man, just tell her I shot someone."
>
>>Investigators have seen the photo.
>
>>Testifying today, Zimmerman's father, Robert, a former magistrate, told
>>the court that the day after Martin was killed he saw injuries his son
>>suffered.
>
>>"His face was swollen quite a bit," Robert Zimmerman said. "There was a
>>protective cover over his nose, his lip was cut and there were two
>>vertical gashes on the back of his head."
>
>>Click here to view the image. Warning: graphic content.
>
>>http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wm...
>
> Prove it's relevant. It hasn't been accepted as evidence yet.
>
> Think about it...the police arrived MINUTES after the shooting. And
> somehow someone shows up AFTER the shooting and BEFORE the
> police arrive, takes a picture and then leaves?
>
Where is your evidence that he left?
>
> And the picture doesn't show up for over 3 weeks AFTER this became
> national news and almost 2 months AFTER the shooting?
>
It took him that long to negotiate a price with ABC News???
>
> This doesn't sound just a little odd to you?
>
Only to Looney Leftist Liberals like you, Andy:

New Photograph Shows George Zimmerman's Bloodied Head
KTLA News¹ | Channel 5, Los Angeles
5:35 p.m. PDT, April 20, 2012

http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2012-04/69509068.jpg
George Zimmerman's head photographed after Trayvon Martin shooting.
(Courtesy: ABC News)

SANFORD, Fla. -- A new photograph released by ABC News shows George
Zimmerman with injuries on the back of his head.

The network says it was able to verify the photo was taken in Sanford
on the night of the shooting using it's embedded data.

The photo was reportedly shot by an anonymous source with an iPhone
three minutes after Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.

The source told ABC News that Zimmerman told them to call his wife and
"tell her I shot

someone."

The picture, which shows blood trickling down Zimmerman's head, may
bolster the 28-year old's claim of self-defense in the shooting.

It was released right before Zimmerman's bail hearing, at which a
judge set Zimmerman's

bond at $150,000.
...
According to Sanford police, Zimmerman told authorities that after he
briefly lost track of Martin, the teen approached him.

After the two exchanged words, Zimmerman said, he reached for his cell
phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose.

Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his
head onto the sidewalk, leading to the shooting

Police have said Zimmerman was not immediately charged because there
was no evidence to disprove his account that he'd acted in self-
defense.

A police report indicated he was bleeding from the nose and the back
of his head.

-30-

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-trayvon-martin-case,0,6972459.story

Pat _close_ attention here, Andy; I'll add EMPHASIS so that you may
see it better:

"A POLICE REPORT INDICATED HE WAS BLEEDING FROM THE NOSE _AND_ THE
BACK OF HIS HEAD."

"Oh wait...I look like a complete asshole"
--Andy "mrLookout" Hull, Sat, June 11 2011

¹ KTLA, virtual channel 5, is a television station in Los Angeles,
California, USA.
Owned by the Tribune Company, KTLA is an affiliate of The CW
Television Network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTLA

The Tribune Company is a large American multimedia corporation based
in Chicago, Illinois. It is the nation's second-largest newspaper
publisher, with ten daily newspapers and commuter tabloids including
Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Hartford Courant, Orlando
Sentinel, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Baltimore Sun, Daily Press and
The Morning Call, among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune_Company

IOW: far from being "Right-wing," Andy.

"Nope..nothing from that network [FOXNews] is reliable."
--Andy "mrLookout" Hull, Fri, Dec 30 2011 2:54 pm

Well, Andy: how about the Left-leaning Tribune Network: is their stuff
"unreliable"?

"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
— Steven M. Barry

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:gpjap792ooovpg6g6...@4ax.com...

This isn't a legal proceeding, it's Usenet. HERE when one makes a claim the
burden of proof is on the one that made the claim.

You claimed it was false, now it's up to you to prove it is false.


That's how the admissibility of evidence works on Usenet.

[John]

William Smith wrote:
> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>
>>
>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical social
>> liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>>
>
> <....>
>
>>

>> http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

>>
>
>
> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC logo.
> Heck, and how do we know it was Z?

> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
> thing, with the gun in his pocket and possibly with the intention
> to provoke a fight and kill someone.

How do we know the black boy is dead. Did you see him and take his pulse.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:hna9p79ve2t1v04pu...@4ax.com:

Or read the papers or read over police reports, etc.. although you claim
to have done so.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com:

Then you haven't pored over all of them:

http://tinyurl.com/7g6qxr8

http://tinyurl.com/7ojrv77

http://tinyurl.com/6s6m6f7

http://tinyurl.com/7wkt3dz


Need more?

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:ia89p71mser6a9si9...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:58:12 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com
>>>>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Â am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Â wrote in

>>>>>> â^z

Bullshit. Having seen many of them, you are wrong.

Can't see any deep split wounds, can
> you? That's because there aren't any. Doesn't even look like real
> blood. Blood immediately turns really dark red from exposure to the
> air and that's pink.

It turns dark red when it dries. That may or may not be soon after it is
exposed to air.

And not nearly enough of it for any sort of deep
> scalp wound.

Who claimed a deep wound....other than you? If it had been a deep wound,
it probably would have required stitches....Zimmerman's wounds did not.

So you've been had, again. No doubt after Zimmerman
> shot Martin he went and ran home and started concocting a story and
> his dad helped him "bloody' his head up some for a cover story.

Lot to do in 3 minutes, particularly considering the police were there in
less than one. Here is the timeline:

7:16 Martin talking to his girlfriend, phone goes dead ending call.

7:17 Police arrive on scene

7:19:07 2/26/2012 - timestamp on picture taken with Iphone4s.

7:30 Martin pronouced dead.

Sources: Call duration from cell provider, police report for time on
scene, EMT report for ToD. {Picture time - Apple Iphone 4s time stamp)

And
> if he was hurt that much why would he not have called the police and
> get official photos?

They were on site? ;)

Pictures of Zimmerman showing up at the police
> station showed absolutely no injuries, nor bruises to his face. Or a
> bloody nose. You can't even tell that's Zimmerman in that picture.

Which means that it is rather grainy wouldn't you say? Of course, the
police also produced an enhanced video a day or two later.

So
> guess again dumbass. You right wing nutjobs never have learned
> anything about criticial thinking.

And you have never learned to think without bias.

Don't you think if you shot and
> killed someone and were claiming self defense you would have gone
> immediately to the police and got official photos of evidence? You
> would if you had a brain which once again you proven you don't.

You are one stupid little kid. It seems everytime you post you show your
immaturity.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:gpjap792ooovpg6g6...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:44:02 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:fii9p751fevsqao74...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:36:26 -0400, "Scout"
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:ia89p71mser6a9si9...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:58:12 -0400, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups
>>>>>>>>.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Ā am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Ā wrote in

>>>>>>>>>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. ā^z

I would say that the stupid one is the one who adds things in his
narration that simply are wrong and thinks anyone who disagrees with him
is stupid. No wonder you have problems when in high school and very few
friends.

>>> You have to prove it's
>>> real.
>>
>>You are the one that presented it. YOU are the one that would have to
>>prove ANYTHING about the picture YOU produced.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA
>
>

[RD Sandman]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in

news:jn2bco$mkf$1...@dont-email.me:

Yep, but superimposed on the picture itself, I don't think so.
Superimposed on the video....absolutely.

>> I am claiming that
>>> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold the
>>> picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the original
>>> picture.
>>
>> True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it.
>
> Probably. Still, neither ABC nor anybody else has a proof that the
> picture was not tampered with and that it indeed depicts GZ shortly
> after the event.

That's true although the time stamp indicates when it was. Iphones
timestamp from their provider. I don't know who that is in the case of
the picture.

> Only the original picture can be admitted as evidence.

There is not original picture as is comonly viewed as one. All
smartphone pictures are binary.

That's not
> enough though. The photographer will have to take the witness stand
> and under the oath describe the circumstances of taking the picture.

Yes, and if that picture becomes part of the evidence will be called to
do so.

> Without that, the picture cannot be linked to the case, who knows who
> is shown? The prosecution should be able to cross examine the witness.
> It should also be able to subpoena the camera, so an expertise will
> determine whether the picture is authentic. Each camera has a unique
> fingerprint.

Yep.

> And in the end it will matter very little. What will matter is the
> paramedics' testimony. If they tell about head injuries the picture
> does not add much. If they say otherwise it would give credence to
> an assumption that the picture shows another man and the witness is
> lying.
>
> If the picture is found to be a forgery it will not matter either -
> like the fantasies of GZ's dad and the previous lawyer, they do not
> matter.
>
> Disclaimer: IANAL.

If that were the case, thousands of folk's who have taken Martin's side
will be happy.

If that were not the case, some people on Zimmerman's side will be happy.
Some of those on Martin's side will be ready to riot.

>> They have
>> been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC which has
>> been caught manufacturing or altering evidence.
>>
>>>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
>>>>> thing, with the gun in his pocket

The gun in his pocket has absolutely no bearing unless it is proven that
he was carrying it with intent. He was licensed by the State of Florida
to do so.

and possibly with the intention
>>>>> to provoke a fight and kill someone.
>>>>
>>>> Which should come out in the trial if that is what occurred. Until
>>>> then, you are simply running on conjecture.....if I may put it
>>>> politely.

[RD Sandman]

Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:rhd9p7hbk7vljqdth...@4ax.com:

Excuse me? Just where have I taken a stance on guilt or innocence of
either party?

[Lookout]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:07:25 -0500, RD Sandman

I post links to back up my posts.

[Lookout]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:22:16 -0500, RD Sandman

So the police let someone ON THE CRIME SCENE, let them take a picture
and then leave?

And the picture shows up weeks later?

AHAHAHHAHAHAHA

You can't be that stupid, can you old man?

[Lookout]

I didn't say you chose guilt or innocence. Don' try to add your words
to my post.
You DO CLAIM that the picture is from Zimmerman's head and taken just
after the shooting.
Yet you have no proof of that.

[Scout]

"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:66c961e4-61b0-4a11...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Heck, where's his proof the photographer wasn't a cop.

I mean does he think that cops don't take pictures for evidence and may even
use an iPhone to do so?

Maybe it could have been one of the EMTs?

After all, wounds are regularly documented before treatment, if possible, if
there is any possibility that charges will ever be filed.

>> And the picture doesn't show up for over 3 weeks AFTER this became
>> national news and almost 2 months AFTER the shooting?
>>
> It took him that long to negotiate a price with ABC News???

Or, maybe this information was turned over to the defense team as part of
the prosecutions required obligation and someone on the defense team
'leaked' it to the media. Maybe to help defuse the media selling Zimmerman
down the river without the benefit of a fair examination of all the
evidence?

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:13:03 -0500, RD Sandman

Yea, none of them would even load. Besides, I didn't know online
blogs and places like ABC news were the keeper of the official
evidence locker. So do you have something entered and logged and
maintained by the police or maybe even hospital records? Something
that migh actually hold up in court?



>
>
>Need more?

[Lookout]

it would be illegal for a cop to take pics at a crime scene and NOT
include them in his report, dumbass.

>
>I mean does he think that cops don't take pictures for evidence and may even
>use an iPhone to do so?
>
>Maybe it could have been one of the EMTs?
>

Again, ILLEGAL

>
>After all, wounds are regularly documented before treatment, if possible, if
>there is any possibility that charges will ever be filed.
>

They would have been included in the police report.

>
>>> And the picture doesn't show up for over 3 weeks AFTER this became
>>> national news and almost 2 months AFTER the shooting?
>>>
>> It took him that long to negotiate a price with ABC News???
>
>Or, maybe this information was turned over to the defense team as part of
>the prosecutions required obligation and someone on the defense team
>'leaked' it to the media. Maybe to help defuse the media selling Zimmerman
>down the river without the benefit of a fair examination of all the
>evidence?
>

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
Wow..that one is out there. How many laws would that be breaking>
>

RUN, scout, run

BOO!!

AHAHAHAHHAHAHA

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:6ejbp712n9djjtngb...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:13:03 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 22, 5:14Â am, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 9:49 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> >> William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> Â wrote in

>>>>>> criteria (goal post move) approaches infinity. â^z

Ah...the Dudu defense of 'I couldn't see it'.

I tried all 4 when RD posted them, and just tried them again, and oddly
enough they all worked for me.

Maybe the problem is the nut on your keyboard?

> Besides, I didn't know online
> blogs and places like ABC news were the keeper of the official
> evidence locker.

Ah, so the only photos you've seen are the ones in the offical evidence
locker?

How exactly did you gain access to the photos in the evidence locker?

I will just note your rather massive back pedal and goal post move.

> So do you have something entered and logged and
> maintained by the police or maybe even hospital records?

So basically, you've not looked at any of the photos then?

> Something
> that migh actually hold up in court?

The picture his links point to.

That is a picture that might actually hold up in court.

That is unless you can prove it's fake like you claimed.

[William Smith]

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

is a picture, not a video.

>
>>> I am claiming that
>>>> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold the
>>>> picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the original
>>>> picture.
>>>
>>> True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it.
>>
>> Probably. Still, neither ABC nor anybody else has a proof that the
>> picture was not tampered with and that it indeed depicts GZ shortly
>> after the event.
>
> That's true although the time stamp indicates when it was. Iphones
> timestamp from their provider. I don't know who that is in the case of
> the picture.

Timestamp is very easy to forge. If the picture is still in the iphone
and it is jailbroken it is easy too. Putting a forged picture into
a non-jailbroken iphone may not be so easy, if at all possible.
And I did not see anywhere that it was an iphone.

>
>> Only the original picture can be admitted as evidence.
>
> There is not original picture as is comonly viewed as one. All
> smartphone pictures are binary.

Original digital image as it comes from iphone or camera. The published
picture has the size 640 by 360 and takes only 35K bytes, clearly not
the original.

>
> That's not
>> enough though. The photographer will have to take the witness stand
>> and under the oath describe the circumstances of taking the picture.
>
> Yes, and if that picture becomes part of the evidence will be called to
> do so.
>
>> Without that, the picture cannot be linked to the case, who knows who
>> is shown? The prosecution should be able to cross examine the witness.
>> It should also be able to subpoena the camera, so an expertise will
>> determine whether the picture is authentic. Each camera has a unique
>> fingerprint.
>
> Yep.
>
>> And in the end it will matter very little. What will matter is the
>> paramedics' testimony. If they tell about head injuries the picture
>> does not add much. If they say otherwise it would give credence to
>> an assumption that the picture shows another man and the witness is
>> lying.
>>
>> If the picture is found to be a forgery it will not matter either -
>> like the fantasies of GZ's dad and the previous lawyer, they do not
>> matter.
>>
>> Disclaimer: IANAL.
>
>
> If that were the case, thousands of folk's who have taken Martin's side
> will be happy.
>
> If that were not the case, some people on Zimmerman's side will be happy.
> Some of those on Martin's side will be ready to riot.

The picture will have very little impact on the outcome of the case.

>
>>> They have
>>> been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC which has
>>> been caught manufacturing or altering evidence.
>>>
>>>>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
>>>>>> thing, with the gun in his pocket
>
> The gun in his pocket has absolutely no bearing unless it is proven that
> he was carrying it with intent.

Intent to kill - maybe not and impossible to prove.
Intent to aggressively confront and be prepared to shoot - very likely.

In any case, it was with intent and not by accident - this much is
obvious.

> He was licensed by the State of Florida
> to do so.

Yep. He went away scot free in 2005 after he "used violence and battery
against the [police] officer" (a quote from a police report). Probably,
his dad helped him out. So he was able to get a gun license later.
When the brats are coddled like that, terrible things happen.

[Lookout]

Well said

[JohnJohnsn]

On Apr 23, 9:29 pm, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/23/2012 05:35 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>

>> William Smith<smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in

>>news:jn2bco$mkf$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>> On 04/22/2012 12:53 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>

>>>> William Smith<smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in

>>>>news:jmvrji$fqt$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>>> On 04/21/2012 01:07 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>

>>>>>> William Smith<smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in

>>>>>>news:jmt8ij$a3v$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>>>>>> On 04/20/2012 10:48 PM, J wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> It appears that there is more to this story than the version the
>>>>>>>> rabble-rousers are offering. Once again, it looks as if radical
>>>>>>>> social liberals have been 'taken for a ride'.
>
>>>>>>> <....>
>

>>>>>>>>http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_w ma in.jpg

>
>>>>>>> And how do we know the photo is real? This one got some Photoshop
>>>>>>> treatment: reducing the frame, compacting the image, adding ABC
>>>>>>> logo. Heck, and how do we know it was Z?
>
>>>>>> Well, it was presented by ABC on its morning show. Are you
>>>>>> claiming that the network photoshopped it?
>
>>>>> As a matter of fact, ABC did photoshop it - to add its logo and to
>>>>> compact the picture but that's not important.
>
>>>> Which is why I didn't mention it. I also don't think that ABC logo
>>>> is on the picture itself. I would bet that it was superimposed on
>>>> the video.
>
>>> The picture (still image) on ABC site has ABC logo, that was
>>> superimposed by ABC.
>
>> Yep, but superimposed on the picture itself, I don't think so.
>> Superimposed on the video....absolutely.
>

> http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wm...

>
> is a picture, not a video.
>

The video is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-tells-trayvon-martins-parents/story?id=16177849

Pay close attention at 01:55 minutes into the video: the state's
"investigator" made an ass out of himself WRT his "investigation."

>
>>>>> I am claiming that we do not know whether the unidentified person
>>>>> who gave or sold the picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not
>>>>> have the original picture.
>
>>>> True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it.
>
>>> Probably. Still, neither ABC nor anybody else has a proof that the
>>> picture was not tampered with and that it indeed depicts GZ shortly
>>> after the event.
>
>> That's true although the time stamp indicates when it was. Iphones
>> timestamp from their provider. I don't know who that is in the case of
>> the picture.
>
> Timestamp is very easy to forge. If the picture is still in the iphone
> and it is jailbroken it is easy too. Putting a forged picture into
> a non-jailbroken iphone may not be so easy, if at all possible.
> And I did not see anywhere that it was an iphone.
>

Then you haven't actually looked:

The photo's geotag info:

Camera properties:
Camera Model: iPhone 4S
Date Taken: 2/26/2012 7:19:07 PM
--Ibid. @ 02:35

IYNSHO.

>
>>>> They have been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC
>>>> which has been caught manufacturing or altering evidence.
>
>>>>>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
>>>>>>> thing, with the gun in his pocket
>
>> The gun in his pocket has absolutely no bearing unless it is proven that
>> he was carrying it with intent.
>
> Intent to kill - maybe not and impossible to prove.
> Intent to aggressively confront and be prepared to shoot - very likely.
>

Intent to defend himself from deadly physical assault: that's now a
"given."

>
> In any case, it was with intent and not by accident - this much is
> obvious.
>
>> He was licensed by the State of Florida
>> to do so.
>
> Yep. He went away scot free in 2005 after he "used violence and battery
> against the [police] officer" (a quote from a police report).
>

An UNDERCOVER police officer: kinda hard to identify an UNDERCOVER
police officer that you believe is a scumbag assaulting your buddy;
isn't it, Billy?

>
> Probably, his dad helped him out. So he was able to get a gun license later.
> When the brats are coddled like that, terrible things happen.
>

Your ad hominem is noted, Billy.
>
>>>>>>> ...and possibly with the intention to provoke a fight and kill someone.

[SaPeIsMa]

"William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message
news:jn5362$bhi$1...@dont-email.me...

Irrelevant
Granted that the media, ABC included have a past history of fabrication.
And since in this case the media bias was skewed pro-Martin, anti-Zimmerman,
there is NO REASON to suspect that this photo, which in effect supports
Zimmerman's tale would be fabricated by ABC.
So this whole nonsense about when and where the ABC logo appeared is total
bullshit
If ABC is willing to put it's name on the photo while presenting it to the
public, it's more likely because they want the credit for first presenting
it.
If ABC had ANY reason to suspect that the photo was NOT real, and NOT
Zimmerman's head injury, we can be sure that it either would not had been
presented, or had been presented with a lot of ass-covering commentary using
words like "alleged".

..<snip>

>>
>> If that were the case, thousands of folk's who have taken Martin's side
>> will be happy.
>>
>> If that were not the case, some people on Zimmerman's side will be happy.
>> Some of those on Martin's side will be ready to riot.
>
> The picture will have very little impact on the outcome of the case.
>

On the contrary.
If it's recognized as admissible, it gives credence to Zimmerman's narrative
and effectively supports his claim of self-defense
This will nullify ANY chance of his being prosecuted for killing Trayvon in
both criminal and civil actions
Which only leaves the Feds investigating civil rights violation, which again
considering a complete lack of evidence of racism by Zimmerman, will be a
flop as well.

>>
>>>> They have
>>>> been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC which has
>>>> been caught manufacturing or altering evidence.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
>>>>>>> thing, with the gun in his pocket
>>
>> The gun in his pocket has absolutely no bearing unless it is proven that
>> he was carrying it with intent.
>
> Intent to kill - maybe not and impossible to prove.
> Intent to aggressively confront and be prepared to shoot - very likely.
>

BZZZT
TOTALLY WRONG
And negated by the facts that:
1) Zimmerman carried regularly
2) According to Zimmerman, he was going shopping when he noticed Martin
3) No evidence supports the presumption that Zimmerman had ANY intention
of "aggressively confront" anyone.

<amazing the absolute shit that some people need to invent to fit their
prejudice>

> In any case, it was with intent and not by accident - this much is
> obvious.
>

What was " with intent and not by accident" that you find so obvious
Take as many screens as you need to support your claim

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:6ejbp712n9djjtngb...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:13:03 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:egs8p7l44bpbvnq75...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:29:15 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Perseus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in

>>>>news:2c0ccd01-46e6-46ac-80ad-
236a30...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

Interesting......they all work for me. Perhaps, you are simply too dumb
or they don't like you.

Besides, I didn't know online
> blogs and places like ABC news were the keeper of the official
> evidence locker.

Nice goalpost move. That wasn't your claim. Your claim was, "I've seen

all the pictures, and I sure they hell don't see any injuries whatsoever
on his face or back of his head."

Well, now you have, if you can figure out how to click on the URLs. I
don't see anywhere in your claim that they had to be entered into the
"official evidence locker". Seems that, again, when you are cornered,
you lie and move the goalposts.

So do you have something entered and logged and
> maintained by the police or maybe even hospital records? Something
> that migh actually hold up in court?

None of the evidence being presented has been entered in court, you
moron.

[RD Sandman]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in

news:jn5362$bhi$1...@dont-email.me:

No shit....really??? The problem is that it is probably a still taken
from the video. They can do that these days, you know. ;)

>>>> I am claiming that
>>>>> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold
>>>>> the picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the
>>>>> original picture.
>>>>
>>>> True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it.
>>>
>>> Probably. Still, neither ABC nor anybody else has a proof that the
>>> picture was not tampered with and that it indeed depicts GZ shortly
>>> after the event.
>>
>> That's true although the time stamp indicates when it was. Iphones
>> timestamp from their provider. I don't know who that is in the case
>> of the picture.
>
> Timestamp is very easy to forge. If the picture is still in the iphone
> and it is jailbroken it is easy too. Putting a forged picture into
> a non-jailbroken iphone may not be so easy, if at all possible.
> And I did not see anywhere that it was an iphone.

Then you haven't watched the video where they show evidence from the
Iphone that the picture was taken on 2.26.2012 at 7:19:07PM.

>>> Only the original picture can be admitted as evidence.
>>
>> There is not original picture as is comonly viewed as one. All
>> smartphone pictures are binary.
>
> Original digital image as it comes from iphone or camera. The
> published picture has the size 640 by 360 and takes only 35K bytes,
> clearly not the original.

We shall see if it makes it into evidence. No sense arguing about it in
here. That will accomplish exactly nothing.

If accepted as evidence and the photographer passed examination, it may
very well give credence to Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him,
broke his nose (yes, I know that isn't in the picture but is part of the
same piece of testimony) and was bouncing his head on the cement.

>>>> They have
>>>> been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC which has
>>>> been caught manufacturing or altering evidence.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the
>>>>>>> entire thing, with the gun in his pocket
>>
>> The gun in his pocket has absolutely no bearing unless it is proven
>> that he was carrying it with intent.
>
> Intent to kill - maybe not and impossible to prove.
> Intent to aggressively confront and be prepared to shoot - very
> likely.

Or self defense just like is claimed. Unlike you, I prefer to wait and
see what comes out in court before I decide guilt or innocence.

> In any case, it was with intent and not by accident - this much is
> obvious.

That intent may purely have been defense of one's self.

>> He was licensed by the State of Florida
>> to do so.
>
> Yep. He went away scot free in 2005 after he "used violence and
> battery against the [police] officer" (a quote from a police report).

Which he ended up not being charged with.

> Probably, his dad helped him out. So he was able to get a gun license
> later. When the brats are coddled like that, terrible things happen.

To get that gun license he has to apply for it and pass a background
check in the State of Florida, IIRC.

In any case, you would be a lot smarter to simply let it all work itself
out in the court.

[William Smith]

This is what ABC presented.

>
>>>>> I am claiming that
>>>>>> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold
>>>>>> the picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the
>>>>>> original picture.
>>>>>
>>>>> True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it.
>>>>
>>>> Probably. Still, neither ABC nor anybody else has a proof that the
>>>> picture was not tampered with and that it indeed depicts GZ shortly
>>>> after the event.
>>>
>>> That's true although the time stamp indicates when it was. Iphones
>>> timestamp from their provider. I don't know who that is in the case
>>> of the picture.
>>
>> Timestamp is very easy to forge. If the picture is still in the iphone
>> and it is jailbroken it is easy too. Putting a forged picture into
>> a non-jailbroken iphone may not be so easy, if at all possible.
>> And I did not see anywhere that it was an iphone.
>
> Then you haven't watched the video where they show evidence from the
> Iphone that the picture was taken on 2.26.2012 at 7:19:07PM.
>

It is not evidence from iphone, it's from computer screen. Faking
timestamp and camera type is easy.

>>>> Only the original picture can be admitted as evidence.
>>>
>>> There is not original picture as is comonly viewed as one. All
>>> smartphone pictures are binary.
>>
>> Original digital image as it comes from iphone or camera. The
>> published picture has the size 640 by 360 and takes only 35K bytes,
>> clearly not the original.
>
> We shall see if it makes it into evidence. No sense arguing about it in
> here. That will accomplish exactly nothing.

Yep. ABC did not publish the original.

Only if paramedics say the same. Not if they say otherwise.

> broke his nose (yes, I know that isn't in the picture but is part of the
> same piece of testimony) and was bouncing his head on the cement.

Z was careful, he did not claim his nose was broken. It was his dad and
his previous lawyer. The police video does not show a broken nose,
and ambulance was canceled.

>
>>>>> They have
>>>>> been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC which has
>>>>> been caught manufacturing or altering evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the
>>>>>>>> entire thing, with the gun in his pocket
>>>
>>> The gun in his pocket has absolutely no bearing unless it is proven
>>> that he was carrying it with intent.
>>
>> Intent to kill - maybe not and impossible to prove.
>> Intent to aggressively confront and be prepared to shoot - very
>> likely.
>
> Or self defense just like is claimed. Unlike you, I prefer to wait and
> see what comes out in court before I decide guilt or innocence.
>
>> In any case, it was with intent and not by accident - this much is
>> obvious.
>
> That intent may purely have been defense of one's self.
>
>>> He was licensed by the State of Florida
>>> to do so.
>>
>> Yep. He went away scot free in 2005 after he "used violence and
>> battery against the [police] officer" (a quote from a police report).
>
> Which he ended up not being charged with.

Having dad with connections helps a lot.

>
>> Probably, his dad helped him out. So he was able to get a gun license
>> later. When the brats are coddled like that, terrible things happen.
>
> To get that gun license he has to apply for it and pass a background
> check in the State of Florida, IIRC.
>
> In any case, you would be a lot smarter to simply let it all work itself
> out in the court.
>

What about you?
>

[RD Sandman]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in news:jn8l87$j8g$1@dont-
email.me:

Yep. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

>>>>>> I am claiming that
>>>>>>> we do not know whether the unidentified person who gave or sold
>>>>>>> the picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not have the
>>>>>>> original picture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably. Still, neither ABC nor anybody else has a proof that the
>>>>> picture was not tampered with and that it indeed depicts GZ shortly
>>>>> after the event.
>>>>
>>>> That's true although the time stamp indicates when it was. Iphones
>>>> timestamp from their provider. I don't know who that is in the case
>>>> of the picture.
>>>
>>> Timestamp is very easy to forge. If the picture is still in the
iphone
>>> and it is jailbroken it is easy too. Putting a forged picture into
>>> a non-jailbroken iphone may not be so easy, if at all possible.
>>> And I did not see anywhere that it was an iphone.
>>
>> Then you haven't watched the video where they show evidence from the
>> Iphone that the picture was taken on 2.26.2012 at 7:19:07PM.
>>
>
> It is not evidence from iphone, it's from computer screen. Faking
> timestamp and camera type is easy.

You wouldn't believe the friggin' picture if the photographer was
standing next to it and swore it was true. No sense me wasting my
time....particularly since I am not taking a stance either way on guilt
or innocence. That is your baby.

>>>>> Only the original picture can be admitted as evidence.
>>>>
>>>> There is not original picture as is comonly viewed as one. All
>>>> smartphone pictures are binary.
>>>
>>> Original digital image as it comes from iphone or camera. The
>>> published picture has the size 640 by 360 and takes only 35K bytes,
>>> clearly not the original.
>>
>> We shall see if it makes it into evidence. No sense arguing about it
in
>> here. That will accomplish exactly nothing.
>
> Yep. ABC did not publish the original.

Whatever.....apparently ABC's experts have said that it seems to be real
and that GPS and other indicators show that it was taken that night at
the location claimed.

The paramedics will only report on injuries and when and where Zimmerman
was examined. They won't say anything about his claims.

>> broke his nose (yes, I know that isn't in the picture but is part of
the
>> same piece of testimony) and was bouncing his head on the cement.
>
> Z was careful, he did not claim his nose was broken. It was his dad and
> his previous lawyer. The police video does not show a broken nose,
> and ambulance was canceled.

Although, there were apparently signs of a broken nose when he was
examined. You are correct that Zimmerman did not claim a broken nose
only that he was hit there.

>>>>>> They have
>>>>>> been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC which has
>>>>>> been caught manufacturing or altering evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the
>>>>>>>>> entire thing, with the gun in his pocket
>>>>
>>>> The gun in his pocket has absolutely no bearing unless it is proven
>>>> that he was carrying it with intent.
>>>
>>> Intent to kill - maybe not and impossible to prove.
>>> Intent to aggressively confront and be prepared to shoot - very
>>> likely.
>>
>> Or self defense just like is claimed. Unlike you, I prefer to wait and
>> see what comes out in court before I decide guilt or innocence.
>>
>>> In any case, it was with intent and not by accident - this much is
>>> obvious.
>>
>> That intent may purely have been defense of one's self.
>>
>>>> He was licensed by the State of Florida
>>>> to do so.
>>>
>>> Yep. He went away scot free in 2005 after he "used violence and
>>> battery against the [police] officer" (a quote from a police report).
>>
>> Which he ended up not being charged with.
>
> Having dad with connections helps a lot.

Whatever. I suppose asking you what you *know* happened would be the
right question since you seem to have made up your mind......never mind
that all the facts aren't out on the table.

>>> Probably, his dad helped him out. So he was able to get a gun license
>>> later. When the brats are coddled like that, terrible things happen.
>>
>> To get that gun license he has to apply for it and pass a background
>> check in the State of Florida, IIRC.
>>
>> In any case, you would be a lot smarter to simply let it all work
itself
>> out in the court.
>>
>
> What about you?

What about me? I discuss what is current about the evidence that has
been released. I have not stated whether I believe Zimmerman is innocent
and acted in self defense or if he profiled Martin, followed and shot him
down. I prefer to wait until the trial commences and the evidence is on
the table.

[William Smith]

Which one? There are 4 videos.

>>
>>>>>> I am claiming that we do not know whether the unidentified person
>>>>>> who gave or sold the picture to ABC photoshopped it first. We do not
>>>>>> have the original picture.
>>
>>>>> True, but I would bet that ABC has an original copy of it.
>>
>>>> Probably. Still, neither ABC nor anybody else has a proof that the
>>>> picture was not tampered with and that it indeed depicts GZ shortly
>>>> after the event.
>>
>>> That's true although the time stamp indicates when it was. Iphones
>>> timestamp from their provider. I don't know who that is in the case of
>>> the picture.
>>
>> Timestamp is very easy to forge. If the picture is still in the iphone
>> and it is jailbroken it is easy too. Putting a forged picture into
>> a non-jailbroken iphone may not be so easy, if at all possible.
>> And I did not see anywhere that it was an iphone.
>>
> Then you haven't actually looked:
>
> The photo's geotag info:
>
> Camera properties:
> Camera Model: iPhone 4S
> Date Taken: 2/26/2012 7:19:07 PM
> --Ibid. @ 02:35

Could be easily faked by photographer. Would be interesting
to see an expertise.

No proof. The photo could be easily faked, and he started the
entire thing - this is known.

[William Smith]

Fabricated by unidentified photographer, not by ABC.

> So this whole nonsense about when and where the ABC logo appeared is
> total bullshit
> If ABC is willing to put it's name on the photo while presenting it to
> the public, it's more likely because they want the credit for first
> presenting it.
> If ABC had ANY reason to suspect that the photo was NOT real, and NOT
> Zimmerman's head injury, we can be sure that it either would not had
> been presented, or had been presented with a lot of ass-covering
> commentary using words like "alleged".

Obviously you did not see the video with the words "ALLEGED PHOTO"
across the screen. Yes, ABC knows that the photo might be fake.

>
> ..<snip>
>>>
>>> If that were the case, thousands of folk's who have taken Martin's side
>>> will be happy.
>>>
>>> If that were not the case, some people on Zimmerman's side will be
>>> happy.
>>> Some of those on Martin's side will be ready to riot.
>>
>> The picture will have very little impact on the outcome of the case.
>>
>
> On the contrary.
> If it's recognized as admissible, it gives credence to Zimmerman's
> narrative and effectively supports his claim of self-defense

Only if corroborated by paramedics. If not then it goes to trash.

> This will nullify ANY chance of his being prosecuted for killing Trayvon
> in both criminal and civil actions
> Which only leaves the Feds investigating civil rights violation, which
> again considering a complete lack of evidence of racism by Zimmerman,
> will be a flop as well.

Wishful thinking.

>
>
>>>
>>>>> They have
>>>>> been taking a hard news approach to this case unlike NBC which has
>>>>> been caught manufacturing or altering evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And even if it was Z, there is an issue of him starting the entire
>>>>>>>> thing, with the gun in his pocket
>>>
>>> The gun in his pocket has absolutely no bearing unless it is proven that
>>> he was carrying it with intent.
>>
>> Intent to kill - maybe not and impossible to prove.
>> Intent to aggressively confront and be prepared to shoot - very likely.
>>
>
> BZZZT
> TOTALLY WRONG
> And negated by the facts that:
> 1) Zimmerman carried regularly
> 2) According to Zimmerman, he was going shopping when he noticed Martin

And what was Martin doing? And why did Z follow him and confront him
according to the girlfriend?

> 3) No evidence supports the presumption that Zimmerman had ANY intention
> of "aggressively confront" anyone.

He did follow and did confront: "what are you doing here".

>
> <amazing the absolute shit that some people need to invent to fit their
> prejudice>
>

Defining yourself?

[Scout]

"William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message

news:jnafpl$ula$1...@dont-email.me...

Please prove to me that the picture was fabricated.

[William Smith]

On 04/25/2012 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>
> You wouldn't believe the friggin' picture if the photographer was
> standing next to it and swore it was true.

It would be stupid to believe. Maybe the photographer faked it to
get some bucks from a media company, and ABC fell for it hook, line
and sinker, how do I know? Faking it is easy, there is cheap or
free software for it. An expertise would be needed.

> No sense me wasting my
> time....particularly since I am not taking a stance either way on guilt
> or innocence. That is your baby.
>
>>>>>> Only the original picture can be admitted as evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is not original picture as is comonly viewed as one. All
>>>>> smartphone pictures are binary.
>>>>
>>>> Original digital image as it comes from iphone or camera. The
>>>> published picture has the size 640 by 360 and takes only 35K bytes,
>>>> clearly not the original.
>>>
>>> We shall see if it makes it into evidence. No sense arguing about it
> in
>>> here. That will accomplish exactly nothing.
>>
>> Yep. ABC did not publish the original.
>
> Whatever.....apparently ABC's experts have said that it seems to be real
> and that GPS and other indicators show that it was taken that night at
> the location claimed.

Do you know there are cheap iphone applications to manipulate pictures?
All the indicators mean absolutely nothing.

If they say "no significant injuries" then his claims are not backed up
by anything. The picture is so easy to fake, it cannot be considered
seriously.

>
>>> broke his nose (yes, I know that isn't in the picture but is part of
> the
>>> same piece of testimony) and was bouncing his head on the cement.
>>
>> Z was careful, he did not claim his nose was broken. It was his dad and
>> his previous lawyer. The police video does not show a broken nose,
>> and ambulance was canceled.
>
> Although, there were apparently signs of a broken nose when he was
> examined.

By who?

> You are correct that Zimmerman did not claim a broken nose
> only that he was hit there.
>

Exactly. This is another indication that the nose was not broken.
Lying is delegated to others, so his credibility remains intact.

Me too. And an easily faked picture is no evidence at all.

[Scout]

"William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message
news:jnagv4$2t9$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 04/25/2012 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>> You wouldn't believe the friggin' picture if the photographer was
>> standing next to it and swore it was true.
>
> It would be stupid to believe. Maybe the photographer faked it to
> get some bucks from a media company, and ABC fell for it hook, line
> and sinker, how do I know? Faking it is easy, there is cheap or
> free software for it. An expertise would be needed.

But have you shown that it was fabricated?

No.

So let's see your evidence.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jnal59$i8d$1...@dont-email.me...

Pop athiests have no evidence. They demand evidence from everybody else,
but when it comes to providing evidence of their own, they always make
excuses.

And if Zimmerman is acquitted, the Martin supporters will riot. Typical
left wing extremists. The extreme leftists are no better than the extreme
rightists.

[Scout]

"Zacharias Mulletstein" <zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote in
message news:jnamv7$oe6$1...@dont-email.me...

Yep, and they are both the same....they just came at the same condition by
different directions but the end is still oppression tyranny and lack of
personal freedom.

Which is why I consider the political spectrum to be circular, not linear.

[Lookout]

First it must be proved the picture is real.
Go ahead...convince us.

[Lookout]

Have you proved it's real?

[RD Sandman]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in

news:jnagv4$2t9$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 04/25/2012 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>
>> You wouldn't believe the friggin' picture if the photographer was
>> standing next to it and swore it was true.
>
> It would be stupid to believe. Maybe the photographer faked it to
> get some bucks from a media company, and ABC fell for it hook, line
> and sinker, how do I know? Faking it is easy, there is cheap or
> free software for it. An expertise would be needed.

Whatever......

>> No sense me wasting my
>> time....particularly since I am not taking a stance either way on
>> guilt or innocence. That is your baby.
>>
>>>>>>> Only the original picture can be admitted as evidence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is not original picture as is comonly viewed as one. All
>>>>>> smartphone pictures are binary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Original digital image as it comes from iphone or camera. The
>>>>> published picture has the size 640 by 360 and takes only 35K
>>>>> bytes, clearly not the original.
>>>>
>>>> We shall see if it makes it into evidence. No sense arguing about
>>>> it
>> in
>>>> here. That will accomplish exactly nothing.
>>>
>>> Yep. ABC did not publish the original.
>>
>> Whatever.....apparently ABC's experts have said that it seems to be
>> real and that GPS and other indicators show that it was taken that
>> night at the location claimed.
>
> Do you know there are cheap iphone applications to manipulate
> pictures? All the indicators mean absolutely nothing.

Fine....we shall see if it ends up in court.

Doesn't appear that way, but its your skirt, flip it how you wish.

And an easily faked picture is no evidence at all.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:jnao98$t6h$1...@dont-email.me:

Most knowledgeable people do.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA041538A2...@216.196.121.131...

Which explains why Dudu considers them opposites.

:-)

[William Smith]

Should I parse the words and the context for you?
I did not say it was fabricated. However fabrication is so easy there is
no reason to state it was real.

[William Smith]

I did not say it was fabricated. However, fabricating it so easy,
it could not be considered evidence.

Step 1. Change the date on the iphone.
Step 2. Z is not under arrest, so bring him to the house, make a cut on
the back of his head with a kitchen knife.
Step 3. Make a picture.
Step 4. Set the date back.

No expertise will find anything, ever.

Even if the date could not be changed, there is iphone software for
manipulating pictures, it can change the picture date and location.

So, this pic is no evidence at all. And if it contradicts other evidence
(we did not hear from the paramedics yet) then it will be rather the
evidence of cover up.

[William Smith]

On 04/26/2012 01:37 AM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:jnal59$i8d$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> "William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message
>> news:jnagv4$2t9$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 04/25/2012 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You wouldn't believe the friggin' picture if the photographer was
>>>> standing next to it and swore it was true.
>>>
>>> It would be stupid to believe. Maybe the photographer faked it to
>>> get some bucks from a media company, and ABC fell for it hook, line
>>> and sinker, how do I know? Faking it is easy, there is cheap or
>>> free software for it. An expertise would be needed.
>>
>> But have you shown that it was fabricated?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> So let's see your evidence.
>
> Pop athiests have no evidence. They demand evidence from everybody else,
> but when it comes to providing evidence of their own, they always make
> excuses.

Can you prove that it is real?
Since faking it is so easy, and the stakes are high, and it is Z who
has to prove self defense, he is the one who must prove it is real.
What's the evidence it is real? None. The time on the iphone could have
been changed for this photo op. And a photo op was made possible by the
police not arresting the killer.

>
> And if Zimmerman is acquitted, the Martin supporters will riot. Typical
> left wing extremists. The extreme leftists are no better than the
> extreme rightists.

If he is released without trial based on SYG, yes, they may riot.
Same if he is acquitted by an all white jury against all evidence
(which has not been presented yet).
Injustice begets violence and more injustice.

[Dakota]

Zimmerman does not have to prove anything. It is the prosecution that
must prove its case.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:33:40 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

He has acknowledged that he killed the child. He has also offered an
affirmative defense. It is his responsibility to persuade the jury that
his story is more than utter hogwash.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Apr 28, 7:56 am, William Smith <smit...@truth.gov.oc>

No such URL, Billy.

wrote:

>
> On 04/26/2012 01:37 AM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>

>>"Scout" <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote in message
>> news:jnal59$i8d$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>"William Smith" <smit...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message

>>> news:jnagv4$2t9$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> On 04/25/2012 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>>>>> You wouldn't believe the friggin' picture if the photographer
>>>>> was standing next to it and swore it was true.
>
>>>> It would be stupid to believe. Maybe the photographer faked it to
>>>> get some bucks from a media company, and ABC fell for it hook,
>>>> line and sinker, how do I know? Faking it is easy, there is cheap
>>>> or free software for it. An expertise would be needed.
>
>>> But have you shown that it was fabricated?
>
>>> No.
>
>>> So let's see your evidence.
>
>> Pop athiests have no evidence.
>> They demand evidence from everybody else, but when it comes
>> to providing evidence of their own, they always make excuses.
>
> Can you prove that it is real?
>

Not our job, Billy; it will be the prosecution's job to prove it
isn't.
>
> Since faking it is so easy, and the stakes are high...
>
So "high" that the photographer is willing to chance his own third
degree felony charge of "Tampering with or fabricating physical
evidence"(Florida Statute 918.13). Billy?

For a neighbor???

Are you real, Billy?
>
> ...and it is Z who has to prove self-defense...
>
No he doesn't, Billy; it's the prosecution's job to prove that the
circumstances of the incident did not justify self-defense action by
George Zimmerman.

You just keep on demonstrating your "Guilty Until Proven Innocent"
Liberal mindset, Billy.
>
> ...he is the one who must prove it is real.
>
See above, Billy.

>
> What's the evidence it is real?
> None.
> The time on the iphone could have been changed for this photo op.
>

From the information I have "gleaned" from the Web, the iPhone gets
its "geotag" information, including time, date and "LatLons", from the
cellular network; not from the phone's internal clock.

All this onformation is stored in the photo's EXIF data.

So your "he reset the phone time" strawman is highly suspect here,
Billy.

>
> And a photo op was made possible by the police not arresting the killer.
>

Really? Then explain the Seminole County DPS EMS/Fire/Rescue
paramedica treating George Zimmerman's head wounds at the scene of the
shooting.

Explain why the Sanford Police Department Book-in area surveillance
video shows an SPD officer inspecting the back of George Zimmerman's
head; inspecting the wounds and the SCDPSEMS/F/R's treatment _of_
those wounds.

Even if he wasn't "arrested" (which did happen; but just at a later
date), he was detained (in handcuffs, no less!), taken to the SPD HQ,
and questioned extensively about the details of the shooting incident.

Face facts, Billy: you Liberal gun-haters are grasping at straws over
this.

You, like The Brady Campaign to Ban Guns and Concealed Carry Laws (f/k/
a "Handgun Control Inc.") are "dancing in the blood" of Trayvon
Benjamin Martin and using his self-administered "Darwinian Solution"
to his pattern of escalating juvenile delinquency to further your gun
control agenda.

>
>> And if Zimmerman is acquitted, the Martin supporters will riot.
>> Typical left wing extremists.
>> The extreme leftists are no better than the extreme rightists.
>
> If he is released without trial based on SYG, yes, they may riot.
>

And if he's released without a trial based upon the fact that his use
of deadly force was clearly legal under Florida law and not
necessarily under the "Stand Your Ground" portion that was only
recently added, will you _still_ "justify" those riots, Billy?
>
> Same if he is acquitted by an all white jury...
>
With Florida being as racially mixed as it is:

White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 75.0% 72.4%
Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 16.0% 12.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2010 (a) 0.4%
0.9%
Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a) 2.4% 4.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2010 (a) 0.1%
0.2%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2010 2.5% 2.9%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2010 (b) 22.5% 16.3%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2010 57.9% 63.7%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html

why do you believe that a jury of Zimmerman's peers will be "all
white"?
>
> ...against all evidence (which has not been presented yet).
>
Yet all you Lying Looney Liberals have _already_ "convicted" George
Michael Martin in your biased "court of public opinion;" even without
knowing (or accepting the known evidence) "all [the] evidence."

>
> Injustice begets violence and more injustice.
>

Presupposes that Zimmerman being innocent of the charges brought
against him by a polotocally-driven Florida State Attorney is
"injustice."

Moreover; where was all your "Righteous Indignation" when Eric "The
Red" Holder's Department of (in)Justice refused to prosecute those New
Black Panther Party members for carrying weapons while committing
voter intimidation at that polling location in Philly?

"Can you say `Hypocrisy of the Left'? I knew you could."

"Riots are not always wrong."
--Andy "mrLookout" Hull, Thu, 12 Apr 2012

[John Baker]

Most rightards *are* guilty - of stupidity. And not one that I've seen
has yet managed to refute the charge.

[Gray Guest]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in news:jngpdv$kgb$1@dont-
email.me:

It sure does.

Maybe whites should riot if he's found guilty.

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[JohnJohnsn]

On Apr 28, 10:16 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:49:24 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn

> <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 7:56 am, William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc>...
>
>> No such URL, Billy.
>
>> ...wrote:

>
>>> On 04/26/2012 01:37 AM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>
>>>>"Scout" <me4g...@verizon,net> wrote in message
>>>> news:jnal59$i8d$1...@dont-email.me...
>

>>>>>"William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message

No bias there; right, John?

>
> And not one that I've seen has yet managed to refute the charge.
>

First, John; you failed to indicate just _which_ "charge" you believe
needs refutation.

Moreover; even a cursory search reveals William Smith
<smi...@truth.gov.oc> to be a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal Left-Wing BDS-
and RDS-afflicted atheist Democrat, John.

I also see where you have "propped him up" in the recent past.

Now, JB; since you saw fit to interject yourself into this discussion,
how about _you_ addressing the points I made above and below?

Or did you just jump in here to throw ad hominems at Conservatives?

The Fifth Law of Leftist Debate:

The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter

to his preconceived world view and, the more difficult it becomes

for him to refute it without losing face, the chance of him

denigrating
the intelligence of the poster or accusing you of having some sort
of mental illness approaches infinity.

Boomerang corollary:
Said leftist will display his own lack of intelligence or mental
defects in his responses accusing you of same and never
get the irony of it.

http://tinyurl.com/Irony-Meter-Pegged

>
>>> ...he is the one who must prove it is real.
>
>> See above, Billy.
>
>>> What's the evidence it is real?
>

What is your evidence that it's a fake?
>
>>> None.
>
Yet to be determined; but you can bet your bottom dollar that if it's
introduced as evidence at trial it will have been vetted out the Yin-
Yang.

>
>>> The time on the iphone could have been changed for this photo op.
>
>> From the information I have "gleaned" from the Web, the iPhone gets
>> its "geotag" information, including time, date and "LatLons", from the
>> cellular network; not from the phone's internal clock.
>
>> All this onformation is stored in the photo's EXIF data.
>
>> So your "he reset the phone time" strawman is highly suspect here, Billy.
>
>>> And a photo op was made possible by the police not arresting the killer.
>
>> Really? Then explain the Seminole County DPS EMS/Fire/Rescue
>> paramedica treating George Zimmerman's head wounds at the scene of
>> the shooting.
>
>> Explain why the Sanford Police Department Book-in area surveillance
>> video shows an SPD officer inspecting the back of George Zimmerman's
>> head; inspecting the wounds and the SCDPSEMS/F/R's treatment _of_
>> those wounds.
>
>> Even if he wasn't "arrested" (which did happen; but just at a later
>> date), he was detained (in handcuffs, no less!), taken to the SPD HQ,
>> and questioned extensively about the details of the shooting incident.
>
>> Face facts, Billy: you Liberal gun-haters are grasping at straws over this.
>
>> You, like The Brady Campaign to Ban Guns and Concealed Carry Laws

>> (f/k/a "Handgun Control Inc.") are "dancing in the blood" of Trayvon

>> Benjamin Martin and using his self-administered "Darwinian Solution"
>> to his pattern of escalating juvenile delinquency to further your gun
>> control agenda.
>
>>>> And if Zimmerman is acquitted, the Martin supporters will riot.
>>>> Typical left wing extremists.
>>>> The extreme leftists are no better than the extreme rightists.
>
>>> If he is released without trial based on SYG, yes, they may riot.
>
>> And if he's released without a trial based upon the fact that his use
>> of deadly force was clearly legal under Florida law and not
>> necessarily under the "Stand Your Ground" portion that was only
>> recently added, will you _still_ "justify" those riots, Billy?
>
>>> Same if he is acquitted by an all white jury...
>
>> With Florida being as racially mixed as it is:
>
>> White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 75.0% 72.4%
>> Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 16.0% 12.6%

>> American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2010 0.4% 0.9%

>> Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a) 2.4% 4.8%

>> Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2010 0.1% 0.2%

>> Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2010 2.5% 2.9%

>> Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2010 22.5% 16.3%

[RD Sandman]

William Smith <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in news:jngpdv$kgb$1@dont-
email.me:

>> Pop athiests have no evidence. They demand evidence from everybody
else,
>> but when it comes to providing evidence of their own, they always make
>> excuses.
>
> Can you prove that it is real?
> Since faking it is so easy, and the stakes are high, and it is Z who
> has to prove self defense, he is the one who must prove it is real.

Not really. Florida is an active defense state. Zimmerman (the
claimant) must show his claim to a preponderance of the
evidence.....Angela Corey (the prosecutor) is the one who needs to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt it is not and that Zimmerman's claim has no
merit.

[RD Sandman]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:ic0op7dprn2is4djo...@4ax.com:

On a preponderance of the evidence. The prosecution has the burden to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense and that

Zimmerman's claim has no merit.

>>>> And if Zimmerman is acquitted, the Martin supporters will riot.
>>>> Typical left wing extremists. The extreme leftists are no better
>>>> than the extreme rightists.
>>>
>>> If he is released without trial based on SYG, yes, they may riot.
>>> Same if he is acquitted by an all white jury against all evidence
>>> (which has not been presented yet).
>>> Injustice begets violence and more injustice.
>

[Dakota]

The preponderance of evidence standard applies only in civil cases.

The entire burden rests on the prosecution. If the case goes to trial,
Zimmerman's lawyer will likely to challenge the prosecution's evidence
and witness testimony to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

As far as I know, the defense has not yet received the discovery from
the prosecution. The discovery is the list of evidence and the
allegations made by witnesses. Once the defense receives these
documents, a plea bargain may be an option worth considering.

[Dakota]

On 4/28/2012 2:26 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> William Smith<smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in news:jngpdv$kgb$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>>> Pop athiests have no evidence. They demand evidence from everybody
> else,
>>> but when it comes to providing evidence of their own, they always make
>>> excuses.
>>
>> Can you prove that it is real?
>> Since faking it is so easy, and the stakes are high, and it is Z who
>> has to prove self defense, he is the one who must prove it is real.
>
> Not really. Florida is an active defense state. Zimmerman (the
> claimant) must show his claim to a preponderance of the
> evidence.....Angela Corey (the prosecutor) is the one who needs to prove
> beyond a reasonable doubt it is not and that Zimmerman's claim has no
> merit.
>

What do you mean by 'active defense state?' Zimmerman has made no claim
as the trial has not begun. The preponderance of evidence standard only
applies in civil actions.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:28:26 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism:

No, it does not. Sure, racist murderers may want to always excuse their
murders as self-defense, but that is not what the law says. The

prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

Zimmerman killed Martin. That is not a problem. Because of idiotic laws
written by Florida reactionaries, Zimmerman has an affirmative defense
that he "felt threatened" and could thereby kill the child. That mere
allegation is not enough by itself, even in this law, to force the
prosecutor to show that his allegation was completely invalid.

>and that Zimmerman's claim has no merit.

Unless Florida has abandoned the common law and common sense,
affirmative defenses still have to be supported by evidence provided by
the defendant.

[RD Sandman]

Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in news:jnhief$a3$1...@dont-email.me:

Why don't you do a search on either active or passive claim on self
defense or who has the burden in Florida?

[RD Sandman]

Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in news:jnhi5m$u6a$1...@dont-email.me:

It is a term that is used when the burden of proof necessary to show that
a claim need not rise to the level of reasonable doubt. As a standard it
applies to civil litigation.....as a wording to show a level of proof
that is not necessarily so.

> The entire burden rests on the prosecution.

Yes, that is why a claim of self defense is considered to be an
affirmative defense. A passive defense state places the burden of proof
on the claimant.

If the case goes to trial,
> Zimmerman's lawyer will likely to challenge the prosecution's evidence
> and witness testimony to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the
> jury.

One way is by showing that the majority of available evidence seems to
support Zimmerman's claim of self defense. Here is the statute:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for
justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012,

[This is the statute that Zimmerman's claim is under and it includes
'stand your ground'.]


s. 776.013,

[This is the statute for Castle Doctrine....]

or s. 776.031

[This is use of force in defense of others.]

....is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal
prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person
against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in
s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official
duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with
any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should
have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this
subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining
in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for
investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the
agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines
that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs,
compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the
defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the
court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in
subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

> As far as I know, the defense has not yet received the discovery from
> the prosecution. The discovery is the list of evidence and the
> allegations made by witnesses. Once the defense receives these
> documents, a plea bargain may be an option worth considering.

Perhaps. However, if the state fails to prove its burden that it was not
self defense, the whole case of Murder 2 would more than likely come down
like a deck of cards.

>>>>>> And if Zimmerman is acquitted, the Martin supporters will riot.
>>>>>> Typical left wing extremists. The extreme leftists are no better
>>>>>> than the extreme rightists.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he is released without trial based on SYG, yes, they may riot.
>>>>> Same if he is acquitted by an all white jury against all evidence
>>>>> (which has not been presented yet).
>>>>> Injustice begets violence and more injustice.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Scout]

"William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message

news:jngpdv$kgb$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 04/26/2012 01:37 AM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:jnal59$i8d$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> "William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message
>>> news:jnagv4$2t9$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 04/25/2012 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't believe the friggin' picture if the photographer was
>>>>> standing next to it and swore it was true.
>>>>
>>>> It would be stupid to believe. Maybe the photographer faked it to
>>>> get some bucks from a media company, and ABC fell for it hook, line
>>>> and sinker, how do I know? Faking it is easy, there is cheap or
>>>> free software for it. An expertise would be needed.
>>>
>>> But have you shown that it was fabricated?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> So let's see your evidence.
>>
>> Pop athiests have no evidence. They demand evidence from everybody else,
>> but when it comes to providing evidence of their own, they always make
>> excuses.
>
> Can you prove that it is real?

Don't know, I haven't tried to prove that it's real, nor have I made any
claim that it's real

Now someone else has claimed it was fabricated and oddly enough I still
haven't seen any evidence to support that claim.

Oh, and if you're attempting to suggest that because it hasn't been proven
to be real that supports a claim that it's fabricated, that is a rather lame
logical fallacy.

> Since faking it is so easy, and the stakes are high, and it is Z who
> has to prove self defense, he is the one who must prove it is real.

Maybe, but that doesn't absolve the person who claimed it was fabricated
from supporting his claim that it was.

Interesting how you seem quite motivated to ignore that aspect of this
conversation.

I will simply note that a claim was made that the photo was fabricated, and
no matter what Zimmerman has to do or anything else, it still does NOT
resolve the issue that he made a claim about that picture and he has yet to
produce ANY support for the claim he made.

<snip>

[Scout]

"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:jc2op7phqb3iho06k...@4ax.com...

> Most rightards *are* guilty - of stupidity. And not one that I've seen
> has yet managed to refute the charge.

And I will just note your bigotry and bias and realize that you're not
someone capable of an objective, rational, discussion.

<snip>

[RD Sandman]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in

news:k8lop7t4ipaea81qs...@4ax.com:

Yes, it does. That is the burden that Angela Corey has. She has to show
beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's claim of self defense has no
merit.

Sure, racist murderers may want to always excuse their
> murders as self-defense, but that is not what the law says.

Here read the law regarding immunity in a Florida self defense claim, mon
ami:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for
justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012,

[This statute referenced is Florida's self defense law with stand your
ground]

s. 776.013,

[This statute referenced is Florida's Castle Doctrine law]

or s. 776.031

[This statute referenced is Florida's Use of force in defense of others]

..... is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal

prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person
against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in
s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official
duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with
any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should
have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this
subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining
in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for
investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the
agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines
that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs,
compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the
defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the
court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in
subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

The
> prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
> Zimmerman killed Martin.

They already know that. Zimmerman has said so. The body lying there was
proof that someone shot Martin. Zimmerman said it was him.

That is not a problem. Because of idiotic laws
> written by Florida reactionaries, Zimmerman has an affirmative defense
> that he "felt threatened" and could thereby kill the child.

Interesting that you would use language like "child" rather than "teen",
"teenager", "young adult".......when describing a person who was between
6' 1" and 6' 3" and weighed 140 - 150 pounds. Zimmerman himself was
only 5' 9" and 170 pounds. Martin was 17, Zimmerman 28.

That mere
> allegation is not enough by itself, even in this law, to force the
> prosecutor to show that his allegation was completely invalid.

She doesn't. She only has to show it beyond a reasonable doubt.

>>and that Zimmerman's claim has no merit.
>
> Unless Florida has abandoned the common law and common sense,
> affirmative defenses still have to be supported by evidence provided by
> the defendant.

Yes, and all it needs to be is enough so that the prosecution (who has
the burden) cannot show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self
defense. IOW, show that Zimmerman's claim has no merit.

>>>>>> And if Zimmerman is acquitted, the Martin supporters will riot.
>>>>>> Typical left wing extremists. The extreme leftists are no better
>>>>>> than the extreme rightists.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he is released without trial based on SYG, yes, they may riot.
>>>>> Same if he is acquitted by an all white jury against all evidence
>>>>> (which has not been presented yet).
>>>>> Injustice begets violence and more injustice.
>>>
>

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:07:07 -0500, RD Sandman

<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in
using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to
defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of
unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly
force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

So Zimmerman needs to show that he was justified in using deadly force
because he reasonably believed that he is in danger of death or great
bodily harm. Even the fight that he alleged happened is not enough by
itself.

[Oglethorpe]

"William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message

news:jngpdv$kgb$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 04/26/2012 01:37 AM, Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:jnal59$i8d$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>
>>> "William Smith" <smi...@truth.gov.oc> wrote in message
>>> news:jnagv4$2t9$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 04/25/2012 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't believe the friggin' picture if the photographer was
>>>>> standing next to it and swore it was true.
>>>>
>>>> It would be stupid to believe. Maybe the photographer faked it to
>>>> get some bucks from a media company, and ABC fell for it hook, line
>>>> and sinker, how do I know? Faking it is easy, there is cheap or
>>>> free software for it. An expertise would be needed.
>>>
>>> But have you shown that it was fabricated?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> So let's see your evidence.
>>
>> Pop athiests have no evidence. They demand evidence from everybody else,
>> but when it comes to providing evidence of their own, they always make
>> excuses.
>
> Can you prove that it is real?
> Since faking it is so easy, and the stakes are high, and it is Z who
> has to prove self defense, he is the one who must prove it is real.
> What's the evidence it is real? None. The time on the iphone could have
> been changed for this photo op. And a photo op was made possible by the
> police not arresting the killer.
>

Since the photo was taken within minutes of the incident, what the fuck are
you talking about? Did the EMTs lie too?

>>
>> And if Zimmerman is acquitted, the Martin supporters will riot. Typical
>> left wing extremists. The extreme leftists are no better than the
>> extreme rightists.
>
> If he is released without trial based on SYG, yes, they may riot.
> Same if he is acquitted by an all white jury against all evidence
> (which has not been presented yet).
> Injustice begets violence and more injustice.

If he's released withoiut a trial it means the prosecutor doesn't have a
case, dipshit. Their lead investigator tesitfied unde oath at the bond
hearing that they had no idea who started the altercation. That's REASONABLE
DOUBT.

[_ G O D _]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote

news:XnsA0438FA06...@216.196.121.131...

>
>
> If it weren't for my lawyer, I still be in prison.
> It went a lot faster with two people digging!
>

> Joe Martin


I dig the joke very much but who's Joe Martin?
--
_____________________________________________________
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--

[Greg Arama]

"_ G O D _" wrote in message news:efdnr.20556$ay5....@newsfe14.iad...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote
news:XnsA0438FA06...@216.196.121.131...
>
>
> If it weren't for my lawyer, I still be in prison.
> It went a lot faster with two people digging!
>
> Joe Martin


I dig the joke very much but who's Joe Martin?
--

<^^^

A bass player.
http://joemartinbass.com/

[William Smith]

The prosecution has a dead body. Merely claim of self defense
is not enough, otherwise all murderers would be free. Such a claim
must be backed up by convincing evidence. The prosecution has the police
video that shows no bandages and no broken nose. The photo in question
is so easy to fabricate, it has as much value as Z's statements.