ABC News shows photo of Zimmerman’s head wounds they previously suppressed—isn’t that nice of them?

(Correction: As discussed in an exchange below, we do not know that ABC News had possession of this photograph and was concealing it until now. At the same time, we do know that ABC News was quick to broadcast a grainy, distant police surveillance video of Zimmerman at the police station which apparently showed no marks on his head or face which led millions of people, including conservatives, to believe that Zimmerman was guilty, and only later did ABC broadcast an enhanced version of the video which showed marks on the back of his head. We also know that the police have had this photograph of Zimmerman all along and that the media has not bothered acquiring it and publishing it until now.)

ABC News reports:

A new photograph obtained exclusively by ABC News showing the bloodied back of George Zimmerman’s head, which was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin, gives possible credence to his claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.

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

The revelation comes as his attorney and prosecutors prepare for Zimmerman’s bail hearing today, which could result in his being released from a Florida jail. Zimmerman, 28, is being held on charges of second-degree murder for the Feb. 26 shooting of Martin, 17, which could carry a life sentence if he is convicted.

Why didn’t ABC News show this photograph several weeks ago, when the Zimmerman/Martin case became a national issue?

The answer lies in the technique of the prevailing left liberalism. The liberal media put out monstrous lies about George Zimmerman, stirring up black America to threats of mass violence and to actual murderous violence against individual white people, as seen in the violent assaults by blacks on whites in Sanford and elsewhere, as when blacks in Sanford pulled a white man out of his car and beat him within an inch of his life. These lies also result in the indictment of Zimmerman for 2nd degree murder. Then, after Zimmerman has been indicted for murder, the liberal media starts to bring out the truth that tends to exonerate Zimmerman and that the media previously suppressed. But will the charges against Zimmerman therefore be dropped? Not necessarily. The same authorities who demanded the criminal indictment of Zimmerman, because otherwise black America would rise up in a nation-wide version of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, will now say that even though there is no basis for the charges against Zimmerman, the trial against him must still go forward and he must be found guilty, because otherwise black America will rise up.

So, first the liberal media through their evil lies create the black rage which requires the persecution and prosecution of Zimmerman, and then when the media admit the exculpatory truth about Zimmerman, it won’t necessarily save him, because the violent black rage created by the white liberals’ lies must still be placated.

- end of initial entry -

Buck writes:

If I were a betting man, I’d give odds that the prosecution of George Zimmerman is doomed to fail miserably, if it is foolishly carried forward. I’d bet, after watching the bond hearing, that the judge, if he could have, would have released George Zimmerman then and there, dropping all charges, and admonished the state for wasting the courts time.
CNN carried it live, repeatedly interrupting at crucial moments. Then after, the host and a guest seemed and even admitted to being stunned at the lack of preparedness of the prosecution.
I saw this as a very good day for justice and for George Zimmerman’s future.

LA replies:

I note that you are predicting that Zimmerman will be acquitted, meaning that the monstrous Stalin-type trial will go forward, and that only after he and the country are forced through the nightmare of a trial he will be exonerated. That’s not a very hopeful scenario. Justice would mean that he is released now, and that criminal charges and disbarrment proceedings are initiated against Angela (“Nifong”) Corey for using her power as state attorney (an office similar to district attorney) to indict a man for murder on the basis of zero facts and on the basis of palpable lies that go against the known facts.

James P. writes:t

Note that the NY Post story reports the words of the charlatan Ben Crump:

Martin family attorney doesn’t believe Zimmerman’s wound was significant.

“How bad could it have been if they didn’t take him to the hospital [and] didn’t stitch him up,” the Martins’ lawyer Benjamin Crump said in a statement.

I guess if Zimmerman’s brains aren’t visible, it isn’t self-defense.

The Post also reports the irrelevant, inflammatory, and in fact unproven factoids, “The unarmed Martin was carrying a packet of Skittles and a can of iced tea when he was shot as he walked home on Feb. 26.” Is the Post supposed to be the conservative paper?

LA replies:

The NY Post is a lynch mob paper, edited and written by people who write and edit as if they were drunkards. They have zero standards. Their “conservatism” consists of zombie-cons pushing Muslim democratization.

Buck replies to LA:

I’m not really predicting anything. I think that the judge and everyone in the court room, and the viewing public, must have realized how hollow the prosecutions case is, and that some kind of accommodation should made, but it may to too late for the state to save face. I don’t know how, at this point, the state can simply drop the charges, but I don’t see how they can possibly be confident of a conviction or even of a strong plea bargaining position, unless they have secret witnesses who will testify that they saw Z stalk M, confront him and kill him, not withstanding all of the facts to the contrary; that he was the aggressor from beginning to end. The public trial and court trial now have a life of their own and will probably go on. I can’t image Z accepting anything other than being found innocent of all charges or the charges being dropped without prejudice. I don’t have any idea how this can end without a trial. But, I don’t think that a trial, even though it would be, as you say, a nightmare for Z and his family and would stir up all kinds of street life, would end badly for Z. What’s done is already done; we’re heading into a hot summer. A trial could very well highlight much of what has been said here; that Z is the real victim of racial hatred, not Trayvon Martin. That’s something to wish for; perhaps a nightmare that we can wake up from feeling somewhat relieved and maybe even slightly hopeful.

Clark Coleman writes:

In your entry, you say that ABC News has had this photo for a long time. How do we know that? And if they had it, wouldn’t other news organizations also be able to get it? They claim “new” and obtained “exclusively” by ABC News. My point in sending the story was not to claim a cover-up conspiracy, but just to settle the issue once and for all of whether Zimmerman had cuts on his head.

LA replies:

You’re right. I was thinking of the surveillance tape of Zimmerman arriving at the police station shown by ABC, which initially was shown from a distance and all kinds of “intelligent” people said, “See, there are no marks on his head, he wasn’t hurt, he’s guilty,” and then ABC did a enhanced closeup of the same image and the marks on the back Z.’s head became visible. But that surveillance video was not, contrary to my incorrect momentary assumption, the same as this police photo of Z. taken at the crime scene. So I do not know that ABC has had this photo all along. At the same time, wouldn’t it have been very easy for ABC and the rest of the media to get this photo from the police, if they had been interested in the truth? So the substance of my condemnation of ABC and the rest of the media stands.

April 21

Jason R. writes:

You write: ‘So I do not know that ABC has had this photo all along. At the same time, wouldn’t it have been very easy for ABC and the rest of the media to get this photo from the police, if they had been interested in the truth? So the substance of my condemnation of ABC and the rest of the media stands.’

But the ABC story itself says where it obtained the photo:

’ 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.’

LA replies:

This is too strange. The person who took the photograph of the wounded Zimmerman at the crime scene was not a police officer, but a civilian witness? It looks like an official evidence photo, with Zimmerman bending his head over while the photo is taken. Why did a civilian take this important evidence shot, and not the police?

Second, the story that is now at the same url as the story I linked Friday morning is a completely re-written story. It starts off with the lead about Zimmerman saying in court to the Martins that he is sorry for their son’s loss. The story posted Friday morning did not say that. I am also believe, though I cannot say for certain, that the earlier version did not say anything about a civilian photographer. (See below.)

This is the Orwellian practice of today’s news media. When they have new information, instead of posting a new story at a new url, they simply replace the old story at the old url, so that the old story ceases to exist, and it becomes impossible to compare the older version with the new version and you can’t tell what information has been changed, added or taken out.

The current story at that url is not just a modified story, but almost a completely different story with a different photo (Zimmerman in court wearing a tie), text, information, everything.

This outrageous media practice may make it necessary to copy the entire text of each news article one discusses, so that one has a record of it if the story is later changed.

In any case, the information that the photo came from a non-police person appears far down in the story. If it was in the Friday morning version I missed it because it was so far down. This is also a result of the broken-up way news stories are written, with each paragraph standing by itself and each subject presented in bits and pieces instead of consecutively. Thus between the paragraph where it says that ABC obtained the photo, and the paragraph saying, “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,” there are eleven paragraphs dealing with completely different issues from the photograph. So if that information was in the earlier version, it would have been very easy to miss it.

Finally, this further information also does not alter my criticism of ABC. The person who took this important photo was not hiding out. He surely wanted to share this photo with the world. But, during all these weeks, while the media were stirring up a national lynch mob against Zimmerman, they did nothing to obtain and publish this photo. Unless we believe (which we have no reason to believe) that the man who took the photograph was deliberately concealing its existence for all these weeks, my indictment of the media stands.

James P. writes:

You said: “Why did a civilian take this important evidence shot, and not the police”

It could well be that the police had nothing to do with this piece of evidence that may play a major role in convincing the jury that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. This is an important lesson for everyone — if you are injured while defending yourself, make sure someone records the injuries.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 20, 2012 11:56 AM | Send