Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 27

On April 01 2012 06:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/03/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-police-report/

This is supposed to be a copy of the police report, though I'm not sure how to interpret it. I think the date and all that is correct, but I don't know about the address and why it says apartment/condo.

“He’s just looking at all the houses,” Zimmerman said. “Now he’s just staring at me.”

Then Zimmerman said the suspicious person, who appeared to be black and in his late teens, had his hand in his waist band. “Something’s wrong with him. He’s coming to check me out.”

As he narrates where the man was headed, the dispatcher asks, “are you following him?”

“Yeah,” Zimmerman said.

“We don’t need you to do that.”

On April 01 2012 06:08 gtrsrs wrote:


touche zato - you are correct. we have but one eye-witness account (which is dubious enough as is) and then a conflicting, projected ear-witness account, if you will. i would be hard-pressed to take either seriously




how would any other outcome be logical?
"we have only one side of the story, so we must disbelieve it"?
"we have only one side of the story, so we must be inclined to believe that the other side of the story would be the polar opposite, and believe it instead"?

if zimmerman is under oath to tell the truth in court (which he will be) and he tells the same story he has been telling... and there is no one in the position to tell any conflicting stories, what logical choice do we have but to believe him? of course, in reality this is rarely how something would play out - the media completely coloring the story one way, peoples' prejudices being brought into the courtroom, people not being rational/logical - which is why i said "this case will basically be decided by whether or not people believe zimmerman's account of the confrontation"

Credibility of witnesses.
You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are:
1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified?
2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?
3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys’ questions?
4. Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?
5. Did the witness’ testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case?
6. Had the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify?
7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness’ testimony?
8. Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court?
9. Was it proved that the witness had been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty?
10. Was it proved that the general reputation of the witness for telling the truth and being honest was bad?

On April 01 2012 06:39 Chargelot wrote:

It was a gated community of condos, wasn't it?

After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.

"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.

Forensic voice identification is not a new or novel concept; in fact, a recent U.S. Department of Justice committee report notes that federal interest in the technology "has a history of nearly 70 years."

Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings.

He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion.

"I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming."

Although many courts have denied admission to voice identification evidence, none of the courts excluding the spectrographic evidence have found the technique unreliable. Exclusion has always been based on the fact that the evidence presented did not present a clear picture of the technique's acceptance in the scientific community and as such, the court was reluctant to rely on that evidence. The majority of courts hearing the issue have admitted spectrographic voice identification evidence.

On April 01 2012 15:48 dAPhREAk wrote:
"science"

do you know why we call experts "whores" in the legal profession?

edit:

so, apparently, there are not many people in this field. in my experience, its usually a field that is not tested and unreliable. or its a highly specialized field with very few that can do it. im going to lean towards the former in this case.

"Thomas J. Owen, an internationally renowned forensics expert and witness, is one of only a handful of experts in the emerging field of digital media forensics."

http://www.salientstills.com/videofocus/stories/tomowen.html

On April 01 2012 16:00 Defacer wrote:


I'll just wait for the medical records and the expert that says, "Oh yeah, that's Zimmerman's voice alright" before I accept his version of events.

Police play the 911 tape for Trayvon Martin's father, who tells police that the voice screaming is not the voice of his son.

On April 01 2012 16:05 dAPhREAk wrote:

thats fine. but im just going to put this here for people who think an expert's testimony is so great.



http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/zimmerman-was-on-the-ground-being-punched-when-he-shot-trayvon-martin

On April 01 2012 16:14 screamingpalm wrote:



LOL talk about biased. Pro tip: any link that says: "charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc" is unlikely to give an unbiased account. How do I know? When I was stationed in Mississippi, I was to go to trial to defend a black shipmate that I witnessed getting brutalized by a bar owner and bouncers for talking to a white girl. I was asked if I would appear at court and said "yes". Two days later the case was dropped.

On April 01 2012 16:18 dAPhREAk wrote:

if you are going to claim bias, please at least be intelligent about it. they are summarizing information received from the police department. see those hyperlinks on there? yeah, those are additional sources.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html