Surely his shirt would be covered in blood if Martin was on top of him and he shot him in the chest. Why wouldn't his shirt be in evidence?

Not necessarily. I think people have an unrealistic idea of what a bullet does when hits flesh. You don't have the explosion of blood like on TV.

Zimmerman’s coat is 80% red/orange. Was it open or closed during the attack? Depends on the type and caliber of the weapon and where he was shot. Usually, the exit wound , if there is one, is larger.

Not necessarily. I think people have an unrealistic idea of what a bullet does when hits flesh. You don't have the explosion of blood like on TV.

 

Saturated, no, but there would be blood spatter.

Shouldn't they be able to tell whether he shot Martin while on the ground or while standing?

The funeral home director says Trayvon had no bruises or scuff marks on his body. Other than the 9 mm slug he took. Therefore, the funeral hoem director was suggesting that trayvon did not hit anyone hard enough to break a nose or anything like Zimmerman suggested. I'd say a caretaker at a funeral home is as credible as any forensics experts that will be involved in this investigation.

How about saying "I'm visiting my Dad and went to the store to buy some skittles"?

 

To hear people keep saying that is ridiculous. Trayvon doesn't have to answer to him, he isn't law enforecement. You make it seem as if Trayvon was an escaped slave and had to answer to every random white man that accosts him.

Saturated, no, but there would be blood spatter.

Let's assume there would be a splatter. That's a far cry from the calls of his shirt should be covered. It's also reasonable to assume that if he did have some splatter on his shirt you wouldn't be able to see that in the video. And again, maybe his jacket was zipped closed. Or maybe there was no splatter.

 

My point is just like everything else to this point too many are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on a security tape that isn't that clear.

The funeral home director says Trayvon had no bruises or scuff marks on his body. Other than the 9 mm slug he took. Therefore, the funeral hoem director was suggesting that trayvon did not hit anyone hard enough to break a nose or anything like Zimmerman suggested. I'd say a caretaker at a funeral home is as credible as any forensics experts that will be involved in this investigation.

 

Not sure about that as the funeral home director could have a bias in favor of the victim and the family paying for his services. The fact that he's spoken out gives me pause as I would expect some privacy to be honored. I would think given the federal involvement and media attention, the forensic experts will be top notch.

Anybody else hear anything about Zimmerman's father being a retired judge from Virginia and that Zimmerman called his father first and then they called the state attorney and began to make their case? These are stories being passed around now. I have yet to do any research on it but I was wondering if any of you all had.

Not sure about that as the funeral home director could have a bias in favor of the victim and the family paying for his services. The fact that he's spoken out gives me pause as I would expect some privacy to be honored. I would think given the federal involvement and media attention, the forensic experts will be top notch.

 

Call it what you want, but Zimmerman is busted.

This may be another ignorance statement, but this is the first time I can recall hearing something from a Funeral Home Director. He may be 100% correct in his assessment, just found it strange.

 

A Volusia County spokesman, Dave Byron, has confirmed that an autopsy was performed by them, but those results could take more than 30 days to be released. Results will not be unsealed until the investigation becomes "inactive."

 

 

 

Trayvon Martin

Let's assume there would be a splatter. That's a far cry from the calls of his shirt should be covered. It's also reasonable to assume that if he did have some splatter on his shirt you wouldn't be able to see that in the video. And again, maybe his jacket was zipped closed. Or maybe there was no splatter.

 

My point is just like everything else to this point too many are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on a security tape that isn't that clear.

 

My curiosity with the absence of blood on Zimmerman had more to do with his broken and bloody nose. Most nose bleeds tend to be profuse and would run down onto the shirt, especially in a scuffle. That's my question about it. That and the inability to see abrasians from being slammed onto concrete. Those kinds of scrapes usually are evident for a couple of days.

My curiosity with the absence of blood on Zimmerman had more to do with his broken and bloody nose. Most nose bleeds tend to be profuse and would run down onto the shirt, especially in a scuffle. That's my question about it. That and the inability to see abrasians from being slammed onto concrete. Those kinds of scrapes usually are evident for a couple of days.

 

Again, can someone answer my question:

 

I am not trying to play Law and Order here, I was just genuinely curious. If you are in any altercation and blood all over your shirt, seems like you would be allowed to put on a fresh outfit once picture are taken, report is filed, etc. Especially 4 hours later. I would not want the crap all over me. From a health standpoint you would not want that all over you. More than anything if they were in as close proximity as everyone says they were, I find it hard nothing would be on him, grass stains or not. That is why I assumed he had changed by then.

 

Not saying that is the case here. Just looking at the film, no it does not appear by what he is wearing anything occurred. But I am not going to base anything in this case off of that video.

 

Again, can someone answer my question:

 

I am not trying to play Law and Order here, I was just genuinely curious. If you are in any altercation and blood all over your shirt, seems like you would be allowed to put on a fresh outfit once picture are taken, report is filed, etc. Especially 4 hours later. I would not want the crap all over me. From a health standpoint you would not want that all over you. More than anything if they were in as close proximity as everyone says they were, I find it hard nothing would be on him, grass stains or not. That is why I assumed he had changed by then.

 

Not saying that is the case here. Just looking at the film, no it does not appear by what he is wearing anything occurred. But I am not going to base anything in this case off of that video.

 

I think it's entirely possible his shirt was taken for evidence if there were any blood on it.

Again, can someone answer my question:

 

I am not trying to play Law and Order here, I was just genuinely curious. If you are in any altercation and blood all over your shirt, seems like you would be allowed to put on a fresh outfit once picture are taken, report is filed, etc. Especially 4 hours later. I would not want the crap all over me. From a health standpoint you would not want that all over you. More than anything if they were in as close proximity as everyone says they were, I find it hard nothing would be on him, grass stains or not. That is why I assumed he had changed by then.

 

Not saying that is the case here. Just looking at the film, no it does not appear by what he is wearing anything occurred. But I am not going to base anything in this case off of that video.

 

 

So then why handcuff him again? For show?