TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Evidence Discussion => Topic started by: Cylinder on May 21, 2013, 09:05:06 PM

Title: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on May 21, 2013, 09:05:06 PM
Lots of new stuff here (http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/171-xxyyzz).
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on May 21, 2013, 09:22:49 PM
Finally a stain map in the 80-photo set.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 21, 2013, 10:13:13 PM
DSC_214, part of the 80 photo set, is of the famous keychain flashlight. The blade of the key is not broken or bent. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2276.msg107005.html#msg107005)
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 21, 2013, 10:19:47 PM
DSC_217 and 218 are of the Arizona fruit cocktail can, both from nearly the same angle. No sign of a dent, but there could be one on the other side.

Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on May 21, 2013, 10:25:26 PM
It looks like the defense took special care to photograph the stains near the knees on Martin's pants. DCS_0138 - 43
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 21, 2013, 10:34:59 PM
DSC_0220-21 appear to show the original of the Zimmerman/Singleton map. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/8195799324/in/set-72157630981402972/lightbox/)

DSC_0219 is a closer view of part of the map, showing most of Zimmerman's route.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 21, 2013, 10:39:10 PM
At last, the button!

DSC_0223

ETA: And the earphones!

DSC_0225

They are small pads, not earplugs. Crump gets another demerit.

ETA 2: They lack a headband, so I wonder how they stay in place.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 21, 2013, 10:54:20 PM
It looks like the defense took special care to photograph the stains near the knees on Martin's pants. DCS_0138 - 43

Note absence of similar stains on Zimmerman's jeans, DSC_0154.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: MJW on May 21, 2013, 11:05:40 PM
ETA 2: They lack a headband, so I wonder how they stay in place.

They fit snugly into the outer ear canal (the part you're allowed to clean with a Q-Tip). Or at least relatively snugly. They never seem to be that secure for me.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 21, 2013, 11:11:26 PM
They never seem to be that secure for me.

Then it wouldn't take much to shake them loose. I'm thinking it could happen from Martin throwing a punch, as readily as from someone else pushing him.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 21, 2013, 11:19:55 PM
Irony alert: The flyer (http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/defense_discovery/general/2011-01-02_incident_ltr.pdf) for the Justin Collison case calls Collison 'monster' and 'animal', the same kind of language that has been used against Zimmerman.

ETA: The Collison material suggests that the defense plans to put Zimmerman's character in evidence.

I think that's a good idea. I think the balance of character evidence on Zimmerman himself is in Zimmerman's favor.

Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on May 21, 2013, 11:54:48 PM
The Bashinsky Transfer Method (https://www.google.com/#gs_rn=14&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=%22bashinky%20transfer%22%20control&pq=%22bashinky%20transfer%22%20control&cp=8&gs_id=44&xhr=t&q=%22bashinsky+transfer%22+control&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22bashinsky+transfer%22+control&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46751780,d.dmQ&fp=b940c212f59370e9&biw=1366&bih=667) (DSC_179-81) is a test for vaporous lead residue helpful in distance determination. A filter paper dampened with acetic acid is applied to the test area and heated with an iron. The paper is removed and tested with a reagent (sodium rhodizanate), a buffer, then a hydrochloric acid solution. A violet or purple color indicates a postive result for lead.

Since the tests are labeled "control," I have to assume that these were performed on areas of the garmet other than the GSW to test for false positives.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on May 22, 2013, 12:06:02 AM
The confusion continues!!!

"One (1) red colored 711 brand name lighter, photo button, bag of Skittles, and headphones located in the victim's pockets or in close proximity."

DSC_0226

 
[Emphasis mine]
 
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on May 22, 2013, 12:14:03 AM
Unfortunately, Stain A (Zimmerman's blood) from ME-8 (Martin's inner sweatshirt) was not photographed. The only two photographs (DSC_193-94) are of the rear of the garment - notice the sample cut out by the FDLE Firearms Lab.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 22, 2013, 12:32:31 AM
"One (1) red colored 711 brand name lighter, photo button, bag of Skittles, and headphones located in the victim's pockets or in close proximity."

Maybe CST Smith ran out of space when she wrote the log entry.

The lighter looks orange to me.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: Cylinder on May 22, 2013, 12:48:55 AM
The May 6 photo set can be fixed via WinRAR repair. IMG_0681 is corrupt. They are pictures of RATL.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: AJ on May 22, 2013, 07:13:37 AM
DSC_0227 is interesting. The phone shows a time of 7:04PM. The metadata on the image says it was taken on August 8th, 2012 at 3:06PM. Is this the approximate time the phone shut off? If so, wouldn't that mean that W8 was not on the phone with Mr. Martin while these events took place?
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: cboldt on May 22, 2013, 07:22:40 AM
The May 6 photo set can be fixed via WinRAR repair. IMG_0681 is corrupt. They are pictures of RATL.

For anybody using linux or similar, `zip -FF may6_photos.zip --out may6_photos-fixed.zip` also works.  IMG_0681.JPG extracts from the fixed archive, with the bottom half of the image "missing."
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: cboldt on May 22, 2013, 07:26:20 AM
DSC_0227 is interesting. The phone shows a time of 7:04PM. The metadata on the image says it was taken on August 8th, 2012 at 3:06PM. Is this the approximate time the phone shut off? If so, wouldn't that mean that W8 was not on the phone with Mr. Martin while these events took place?

We'd have to know how the clock on the phone is set (only locally, of via data on the cell tower signals or wireless network signals), if the phone was powered down hard (battery gone or dead), and when the phone was last resupplied with power, before the photo was taken.  I doubt the clock on the phone is showing/stuck on the time it shut off (if it did) on February 26th.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: AJ on May 22, 2013, 08:03:17 AM
We'd have to know how the clock on the phone is set (only locally, of via data on the cell tower signals or wireless network signals), if the phone was powered down hard (battery gone or dead), and when the phone was last resupplied with power, before the photo was taken.  I doubt the clock on the phone is showing/stuck on the time it shut off (if it did) on February 26th.

Thinking back on it, I did jump the gun. I was somehow under the (self-imposed) impression that maybe they kept the battery out of the phone when they weren't working on it, but looking at the image again, the battery is full so the clock has been moving for a number of hours.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on May 22, 2013, 10:06:38 AM
Thinking back on it, I did jump the gun. I was somehow under the (self-imposed) impression that maybe they kept the battery out of the phone when they weren't working on it, but looking at the image again, the battery is full so the clock has been moving for a number of hours.
Also, didn't the police use the phone to call 911 in order to obtain the number of the phone, back in March 2012?

Still, it's kind of weird that the clock on the phone just happens to randomly show a time corresponding to the time phone calls were being made before the altercation-- as opposed to, say, 11:20 AM.

I've never owned a cell phone, so I have to ask: is it possible to replace the battery to do something with the phone but not reactivate the clock, so it keeps displaying the last time it showed?
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: unitron on May 22, 2013, 11:21:23 AM
Also, didn't the police use the phone to call 911 in order to obtain the number of the phone, back in March 2012?

Still, it's kind of weird that the clock on the phone just happens to randomly show a time corresponding to the time phone calls were being made before the altercation-- as opposed to, say, 11:20 AM.

I've never owned a cell phone, so I have to ask: is it possible to replace the battery to do something with the phone but not reactivate the clock, so it keeps displaying the last time it showed?

If you power it up, I'm pretty sure the clock is going to start ticking again.

If you have it inside a Faraday cage so it can't connect to any cell phone towers or anything, I don't know if it picks up where it left off (or if it even has a record of when that was), or if it resets the time and date to whatever the default is for whatever operating system it runs.

It would make sense for them to do all the work in a totally shielded environment so as to not have the phone start downloading a software update in the middle of things.

I'd like to see proof positive that the camera that took the picture was set to the right time and date, to the sliver of a second, and in what time zone it was set.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: AJ on May 22, 2013, 11:30:42 AM
Gzdocs.com (where documents are hosted) has had some bandwidth issues in the last couple days, and they put up a bunch of .zip files which doesn't help people who are on handhelds. What I've done is set up a dropbox with all of yesterday's documents. Feel free to share it if you want (I know Annette did on her blog): https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gg072c6k5jii62t/5SE_vMu4f7
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: MJW on May 22, 2013, 11:41:53 AM
If you power it up, I'm pretty sure the clock is going to start ticking again.

If you have it inside a Faraday cage so it can't connect to any cell phone towers or anything, I don't know if it picks up where it left off (or if it even has a record of when that was), or if it resets the time and date to whatever the default is for whatever operating system it runs.

The phone display shows four bars for the signal strength, so I doubt it's in a Faraday cage. Too bad the display doesn't include the date.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: leftwig on May 22, 2013, 01:26:23 PM
So after looking at some of the photos, I am left thinking of a question we've had for some time and that is, was the button really found on TM's sweatshirt or in his pockets by police or ME?  In looking at the photo's from the 7-11 and the photo of the sweatshirt with the gunshot wound, it looks like the button would have been awfully darn close to the bullet hole.  I am not suggesting I can tell its exactly where the bullet hole is or that even if it was, the gun could have been under the button when the shot was fired.  However, if the button were on TM's person, in the location that it can be seen on the 7-11 photos, it most certainly would have had blood on it and likely gunshot residue. 

Was the button tested for any forensics evidence?  I don't recall that it was, but can't think of any reason it wouldn't have been tested if found on the sweatshirt right by the gunshot wound.  IT seems to me that if it wasn't tested, then it wasn't in the same location that it was on while at the 7-11 and most likely was not attached to the sweatshirt.  That, or police just totally screwed that one up.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 22, 2013, 01:38:53 PM
Ayala reportedly said the gunshot wound was under the button (2/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)).

I still don't understand why Ayala would have hallucinated this, when he had no way of knowing there was such a button in one of Martin's pockets.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: MJW on May 22, 2013, 02:37:54 PM
Ayala reportedly said the gunshot wound was under the button (2/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)).

I still don't understand why Ayala would have hallucinated this, when he had no way of knowing there was such a button in one of Martin's pockets.

But leftwig's question remains: if the button were pinned on the hoodie so near the bullet entry hole, why wasn't it tested for blood and powder residue?
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: DiwataMan on May 22, 2013, 02:59:49 PM
But leftwig's question remains: if the button were pinned on the hoodie so near the bullet entry hole, why wasn't it tested for blood and powder residue?

We don't know it wasn't tested do we? Even if not it could be they just didn't do it like other things they could have done but didn't. Did they test the watch? Because there looks to be abrasions about George's head and face that could have come from Trayvons watch scrapping against the skin. Perhaps that one cut on the bridge of the nose came from that as well. But of course that's stuff that would help George so why would they bother really, they had their victim.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: MJW on May 22, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
Ayala reportedly said the gunshot wound was under the button (2/284).

I'm pretty sure the page number is wrong. I know the button is mentioned on page 20 in by Ciesla, but I don't know where Ayala's report is. (I believe there is one, I just can't find it quickly.)
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: MJW on May 22, 2013, 03:09:24 PM
We don't know it wasn't tested do we? Even if not it could be they just didn't do it like other things they could have done but didn't. Did they test the watch?

I don't think the watch was tested, but the watch wasn't a few inches, at most, from the bullet hole. I also don't understand why the button would be removed at the scene, except if it were necessary to aid the attempted resuscitation. And if it we're, I think that that, being something out of the ordinary, would be mentioned in a report.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 22, 2013, 03:10:15 PM
But leftwig's question remains: if the button were pinned on the hoodie so near the bullet entry hole, why wasn't it tested for blood and powder residue?

We don't know that it wasn't. If it wasn't, 'because it was in a pocket', is not a plausible explanation in my opinion.

Just because a 'question remains', doesn't mean every conceivable answer to that question is plausible.

Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: DiwataMan on May 22, 2013, 03:15:47 PM
I don't think the watch was tested, but the watch wasn't a few inches from the bullet hole. I also don't understand why the button would be removed at the scene, except it it were necessary to aid the attempted resuscitation. And it we're, I think that that, being something out of the ordinary, would be mentioned in a report.

I'm not sure what you mean then as I was just bringing up another example. The watch didn't need to be next to the bullet hole to justify testing it so I'm missing your point there I guess. Maybe they remove everything before going to the ME? I don't know but I'm sure there's a simple explanation.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: MJW on May 22, 2013, 03:16:20 PM
We don't know that it wasn't. If it wasn't, 'because it was in a pocket', is not a plausible explanation in my opinion.

Just because a 'question remains', doesn't mean every conceivable answer to that question is plausible.

If it were tested, the report should be in the discovery.

That it could have been in his pocket doesn't strike me as highly improbable.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: MJW on May 22, 2013, 03:19:33 PM
I'm not sure what you mean then as I was just bringing up another example. The watch didn't need to be next to the bullet hole to justify testing it so I'm missing your point there I guess. Maybe they remove everything before going to the ME? I don't know but I'm sure there's a simple explanation.

I just mean that while it may have been desirable to test the watch, it almost seems incredible that they wouldn't have tested the button.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: DiwataMan on May 22, 2013, 03:22:59 PM
I just mean that while it may have been desirable to test the watch, it almost seems incredible that they wouldn't have tested the button.

I'm not sure it's competitive that way. How do you weigh the difference really? What about them having the ability to find W8 and didn't, I mean if Crump can do it...lolz.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 22, 2013, 03:26:01 PM
What about them having the ability to find W8 and didn't, I mean if Crump can do it...lolz.

Crump had the co-operation of a witness who was stonewalling the SPD, on Crump's advice.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: DiwataMan on May 22, 2013, 03:33:15 PM
Crump had the co-operation of a witness who was stonewalling the SPD, on Crump's advice.

Couldn't they have subpenaed T-Mobile for the records at least to check for calls? Taken it to cellebrite if need be? I'll have to go back and look but I wonder what info they did get off of it even though it was pattern locked, if that included the last few calls or so then that just makes their job easier regarding this aspect anyway.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 22, 2013, 03:41:36 PM
Couldn't they have subpenaed T-Mobile for the records at least to check for calls?

My hazy recollection is that they asked for a subpoena at some point, but it hadn't been granted by the time they turned the case over to Wolfinger's office and the FDLE.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: DiwataMan on May 22, 2013, 03:45:13 PM
My hazy recollection is that they asked for a subpoena at some point, but it hadn't been granted by the time they turned the case over to Wolfinger's office and the FDLE.

I wish we had the whole SPD file, that would help a bit. Someone convince O'Mara to post that. Don't you think T-Mobile might just help in this regard though? I mean they can if they wanted just give the cops basic call info, number/times, for that day if they asked couldn't they?
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: MJW on May 22, 2013, 06:59:28 PM
Ayala reportedly said the gunshot wound was under the button (2/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)).

I still don't understand why Ayala would have hallucinated this, when he had no way of knowing there was such a button in one of Martin's pockets.

The interview was conducted on April 2, 2012 -- over a month later. Why assume he hallucinated when we could assume he misremembered? By that time, everyone had heard the NEN call where GZ said TM was wearing the button. Why was the photo button specifically mentioned in that very brief interview summary? For all we know, Gilbreath reminded Ayala of the button, and Ayala said the gunshot wound must have been under it. What does "under a photo button" mean, anyway? Lower than the button, or covered by the button? I don't have much faith in an interview summary that doesn't make that clear.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 22, 2013, 07:38:57 PM
The interview was conducted on April 2, 2012 -- over a month later.

Response (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2288.msg109732.html#msg109732) on button and headphones thread.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 22, 2013, 10:46:34 PM
My hazy recollection is that they asked for a subpoena at some point, but it hadn't been granted by the time they turned the case over to Wolfinger's office and the FDLE.

New York Times, 5/16/12 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2)

Quote
The police eventually subpoenaed Mr. Martinís cellphone records, but did not receive them in a timely fashion.

In my notes I have some snippets from a 3/21 Miami Herald article, with a link that no longer works.

Quote
As for checking the boyís phone records, Trayvonís phone was locked and detectives were in the process of getting a subpoena for the records, [Sanford police spokesman Sgt. David] Morgenstern said.
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: leftwig on May 23, 2013, 08:06:35 AM
Ayala reportedly said the gunshot wound was under the button (2/284 (http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf)).

I still don't understand why Ayala would have hallucinated this, when he had no way of knowing there was such a button in one of Martin's pockets.

I think its a fair assumption if he said the gunshot was "under" the button, that the button was covering it.  Maybe its too much to assume an officer (or officer of the court writing up the report) wouldn't use the word "under" it the bullet hole was actually below.  I understand the under and below could have the same meaning when describing the level of an object in relation to another, but these individuals are trained to be precise when writing up reports or describing what they see and "under" would be the precise word to use if an object was covering another, not vertically above. 

As for Ayala, I wouldn't assume he hallucinated anything, but maybe misremembered, depending on how much time had elapsed before his report was taken.  Is it possible he saw a kid who was shot and bleeding out and just started trying to revive him as quick as possible without really thinking about what he was seeing, then later when gathering evidence, saw the button place on TM's chest and is reporting that?   I am not saying I think thats likely, but I think its possible.   

Now, if the button were attached to the sweatshirt and that close to where the entry hole was (over top of, or just above), I can't fathom a reason why the button wouldn't have been tested for blood and gunshot residue.   We haven't seen a report on it, so is the report being held back (seems impossible given sunshine laws and other reports that have been released), or wasn't it tested?  I will make the assumption it wasn't tested.  Is it more reasonable to think an officer would misremember seeing something while in a hurry to try and revive a dying person, or that an entire police force would not think to test an object that was right where the bullet hole was?
Title: Re: Defendant's Second Supplemental Discovery
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on May 23, 2013, 11:38:20 PM
As for Ayala, I wouldn't assume he hallucinated anything, but maybe misremembered, depending on how much time had elapsed before his report was taken.

Response (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2288.msg109861.html#msg109861) on button and headphones thread.