17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[sfemti33]

Also welcome. My knowledge of the collection of DNA is limited and my knowledge of the handling and testing is old. I did a little back in the middle 90's and almost took a job at a DNA lab in the late 90's, but I got a better offer from a different kind of lab, which took my career in a slightly different direction.

Unfortunately, I have almost no knowledge of the lab aspect of it at all. I made the assumption that my technique/collection habits were appropriate as I would see DNA reports come back in my cases with good data and had very little come back with disparities or inconsistencies that would point to error on my part. All I know is that DNA is the future. I could be wrong, but give it 10-15 years and it will surpass fingerprint comparison and collection. I don't think fingerprint work will ever go away, but advances are already here.

But to get it back on track, it would really depend on if the "suspect" in this case ever touched anything of the "victim" that has probative value. Meaning, I can find fingerprints in a house all day but if the victim tells me "Well, I let (suspect) in my home a few days ago and he lived here for a week, but now he's out and burglarized my home" what do his fingerprints prove? What value does it bring? I had this situation more times than I can count. I cannot prove, in a court of law, the time of fingerprints (or DNA for that matter). Could they have been left there during an authorized stay? Of course. Then your prosecution is out the window. That doesn't strictly pertain to this case, but it illustrates another aspect of issues that can arise. Even if the gun was touched in this Zimmerman case, what does it prove, inconclusively? His DNA could have gotten on the gun any number of ways. However, my knowledge of this case is strictly media biased so, please, if there is some aspect of this I am missing I want to know. To me, DNA evidence just seems like one of the least important aspects of this case.

[C-dub]

I have no more knowledge of this case than you and maybe less. I have not followed it very much since this thread contains information from various sources.

[emcee rib]

To me, DNA evidence just seems like one of the least important aspects of this case.

It looks like any kind of credible evidence is unimportant to the special prosecutor.

[philip964]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 34551.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Defense team releases photo of George Zimmerman taken night of the shooting by the police while he was in the back of the patrol car.

The police did not arrest him and believed his story of self defense. Wonder why?

Apparently the prosecutors have had this photo for a long time, but only released a black and white photo copy to the defense until recently when after prodding they now released the color photo.

Sure seems a miscarriage of justice to continue with this charade for the sake of the politicians.

I will stop here before I say something that would not be PC.

Oh, did this make the national news?

[77346]

huge difference between the color and b/w versions of that photo

[Jumping Frog]

huge difference between the color and b/w versions of that photo

CNN is also running the story:



Unmarked hands:

[mamabearCali]

Yep, this is a huge miscarriage of justice. He quite obviously took a beating before he shot TM. I don't know but I wonder if there is enough evidence of the enormity of this political prosecution that it could be result in charges and disbarment Nifong style.

[VMI77]

huge difference between the color and b/w versions of that photo

And a DELIBERATE falsification. There is no way converting the color version of that photo to B&W produces the image released by the prosecution, unless it was DELIBERATELY manipulated to reduce detail by adding grain and increasing contrast. The B&W version makes it look like Z has a goatee and mustache. All the shadow detail is gone and the mid-tones and highlights are blown out. You'd have to make an extra effort to produce this B&W version so it seems to me the prosecution should be criminally charged with evidence tampering.

[A-R]

huge difference between the color and b/w versions of that photo

And a DELIBERATE falsification. There is no way converting the color version of that photo to B&W produces the image released by the prosecution, unless it was DELIBERATELY manipulated to reduce detail by adding grain and increasing contrast. The B&W version makes it look like Z has a goatee and mustache. All the shadow detail is gone and the mid-tones and highlights are blown out. You'd have to make an extra effort to produce this B&W version so it seems to me the prosecution should be criminally charged with evidence tampering.

It's a photocopy, likely sent over a fax machine. No special tricks needed- just outdated, crappy equipment

Still doesn't absolve prosecution from supplying the clearer color version

[recaffeination]

From the beginning, the media circus has been about racism and attacking the common law principle of self defense. I can see echoes of that in the crimnal who assaulted a store clerk recently. The racists march and shout JUSTICE! when justice is exactly what the attacker got on the scene.

[The Annoyed Man]

They're covering this on Fox right at the moment.

[VMI77]

huge difference between the color and b/w versions of that photo

And a DELIBERATE falsification. There is no way converting the color version of that photo to B&W produces the image released by the prosecution, unless it was DELIBERATELY manipulated to reduce detail by adding grain and increasing contrast. The B&W version makes it look like Z has a goatee and mustache. All the shadow detail is gone and the mid-tones and highlights are blown out. You'd have to make an extra effort to produce this B&W version so it seems to me the prosecution should be criminally charged with evidence tampering.

It's a photocopy, likely sent over a fax machine. No special tricks needed- just outdated, crappy equipment

Still doesn't absolve prosecution from supplying the clearer color version

Edited for tone and content.

Photocopy? Fax? This isn't 1975 anymore. My $50 Canon multifunction ink-jet copier would produce a better B&W copy than this. And who sends out photos by fax? Just a modicum of professionalism would lead any honest person to say --we can't fax a B&W photocopy because it would misrepresent the evidence. Even prosecutors have email or can post photos to websites. Newspapers have photo contests all the time and they don't even accept faxed images like this, so another question is why didn't they ask for a better image? The most obvious answer is that some did and were refused. Otherwise we have to believe the entire news media was interested in hiding the truth. And in my small company, with our off the Wal-mart shelf equipment, making a photocopy and faxing it would still produce a much much better image than this. The ONLY reason for faxing a photocopy of this quality is obfuscation.

[A-R]

huge difference between the color and b/w versions of that photo

And a DELIBERATE falsification. There is no way converting the color version of that photo to B&W produces the image released by the prosecution, unless it was DELIBERATELY manipulated to reduce detail by adding grain and increasing contrast. The B&W version makes it look like Z has a goatee and mustache. All the shadow detail is gone and the mid-tones and highlights are blown out. You'd have to make an extra effort to produce this B&W version so it seems to me the prosecution should be criminally charged with evidence tampering.

It's a photocopy, likely sent over a fax machine. No special tricks needed- just outdated, crappy equipment

Still doesn't absolve prosecution from supplying the clearer color version

Edited for tone and content.

Photocopy? Fax? This isn't 1975 anymore. My $50 Canon multifunction ink-jet copier would produce a better B&W copy than this. And who sends out photos by fax? Just a modicum of professionalism would lead any honest person to say --we can't fax a B&W photocopy because it would misrepresent the evidence. Even prosecutors have email or can post photos to websites. Newspapers have photo contests all the time and they don't even accept faxed images like this, so another question is why didn't they ask for a better image? The most obvious answer is that some did and were refused. Otherwise we have to believe the entire news media was interested in hiding the truth. And in my small company, with our off the Wal-mart shelf equipment, making a photocopy and faxing it would still produce a much much better image than this. The ONLY reason for faxing a photocopy of this quality is obfuscation.

I wasn't defending it. Just saying what I'm fairly sure it is.

[VMI77]

huge difference between the color and b/w versions of that photo

And a DELIBERATE falsification. There is no way converting the color version of that photo to B&W produces the image released by the prosecution, unless it was DELIBERATELY manipulated to reduce detail by adding grain and increasing contrast. The B&W version makes it look like Z has a goatee and mustache. All the shadow detail is gone and the mid-tones and highlights are blown out. You'd have to make an extra effort to produce this B&W version so it seems to me the prosecution should be criminally charged with evidence tampering.

It's a photocopy, likely sent over a fax machine. No special tricks needed- just outdated, crappy equipment

Still doesn't absolve prosecution from supplying the clearer color version

Edited for tone and content.

Photocopy? Fax? This isn't 1975 anymore. My $50 Canon multifunction ink-jet copier would produce a better B&W copy than this. And who sends out photos by fax? Just a modicum of professionalism would lead any honest person to say --we can't fax a B&W photocopy because it would misrepresent the evidence. Even prosecutors have email or can post photos to websites. Newspapers have photo contests all the time and they don't even accept faxed images like this, so another question is why didn't they ask for a better image? The most obvious answer is that some did and were refused. Otherwise we have to believe the entire news media was interested in hiding the truth. And in my small company, with our off the Wal-mart shelf equipment, making a photocopy and faxing it would still produce a much much better image than this. The ONLY reason for faxing a photocopy of this quality is obfuscation.

I wasn't defending it. Just saying what I'm fairly sure it is.

I get that....we're only differing over intent. I just think the manner of providing the photo was deliberate obfuscation, and if it was indeed photocopied and faxed, that it was done deliberately to degrade the image.

[philip964]

http://www.khou.com/news/George-Zimmerm ... 85211.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

George Zimmerman shoots back at NBC News. NBC denies any wrong doing, but they fired the three employees involved. Probably unrelated.