|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 10 2013 04:32 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results. Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that. thats what they are trying to do. honestly, would you expect the family to say anything other than that it was their son's voice? the mother was cagey with her answers, but O'Mara was pretty clear in his questioning: she wanted to hear her son's voice on the call because she wanted to remember her son as the victim not as the person attacking another. same with zimmerman's mother/family. doesnt mean they are wrong or right, but you hear what you want to hear (confirmation bias). i am unsurprised that all of the witnesses stand on one side or the other based on whether they are friends/family of trayvon/zimmerman. the only honest answers i have seen were when zimmerman said it didnt sound like him (unsurprising since its a shitty recording) and the father who said it didnt sound like his son's voice (also based on shitty recording). so, good chance that the jurors will most likely ignore all those witnesses since they have confirmation bias?
yes, they will cancel each other out. the most compelling testimony was the uncle who said he heard the voice on the news and immediately knew it was zimmerman even though he wasnt watching the news and just heard the voice while typing on his computer. i think he too will be disregarded.
its a wash as far as the voice recognition. i think john good's testimony will be more relevant to determining who was screaming.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Fair enough. I figured they'll ignore them. Thanks guys!
|
On July 10 2013 04:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:19 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2013 04:16 jeremycafe wrote:On July 10 2013 04:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:08 jeremycafe wrote:
When did I say it was illegal? Please, copy and paste it. What I said is that I have lost respect for him that he would rely on such a tactic instead of using actual evidence to win his case. He is a scumbag for doing so, and anyone else who does so is as well. I don't have to be a lawyer to know when someone is being a piece of shit, sorry. Like I said, I hope to god I never end up as a defendant because shit like that should not be allowed.
"i was trying to help you understand trial practice. you dont seem to care though, so, oh wells."
No you are not, you are defending the fact that he did it. I am clearly saying he is a scumbag for doing so. And now you are trying to say I don't understand law or trial practices to make that conclusion? You are not even arguing against my point. You are siderailing it now to show your superior knowledge. The hell do I care how much knowledge you have or that I dont have? The guy is still a scumbag. lets be clear here. the prosecutor used a legally proper question that was not objected to by the defense and not criticized by the judge, but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case, you are morally outraged? or is it the fact that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of a fact that does not comport with your preconceived knowledge of what the facts of this case are? Have you read anything I have said? I am "morally outraged" because he was making a point, but then changed a single word at the last question to completely change the meaning of the question but masked it with his tone and momentum. To disagree that he did that is blatant ignorance. "but because it was worded in a way that was intentionally aimed to convince the jury of a certain fact that supports the prosecutor's case" This is where you are missing the damn point. He didn't try to convince them of a fact by asking a proper question. He lumped a question that would prove OTHERWISE of his stance with a bunch of other questions in hopes the jury wouldn't catch the swap. There is nothing legally wrong with it, its morally wrong because he is convincing the jury of something that isn't true by confusing them. He had the witness agree that the State's stance was WRONG but made it sound as if he was agreeing with the State. I think you are confused as to what the Defenses job is. They do not care if you are anyone else is morally outraged and never should be. I would fire my defense attorney if he gave two shits about anyone else but me when he was defending me. They are ethically required to defend their client to the best of their ability. I don't know if I agree with that. They are ethically required to give the best legal council that they can give, not necessarily defend to the best of their ability (ie: keep you out of jail). You are 100% incorrect and flat out wrong. They are required by ethics to do, no matter what. There are limits(like knowing their client is going to harm someone else) but normally they are required to get the best outcome for their client, regardless of their personal feelings on the subject.
|
On July 10 2013 04:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:32 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results. Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that. thats what they are trying to do. honestly, would you expect the family to say anything other than that it was their son's voice? the mother was cagey with her answers, but O'Mara was pretty clear in his questioning: she wanted to hear her son's voice on the call because she wanted to remember her son as the victim not as the person attacking another. same with zimmerman's mother/family. doesnt mean they are wrong or right, but you hear what you want to hear (confirmation bias). i am unsurprised that all of the witnesses stand on one side or the other based on whether they are friends/family of trayvon/zimmerman. the only honest answers i have seen were when zimmerman said it didnt sound like him (unsurprising since its a shitty recording) and the father who said it didnt sound like his son's voice (also based on shitty recording). so, good chance that the jurors will most likely ignore all those witnesses since they have confirmation bias? yes, they will cancel each other out. the most compelling testimony was the uncle who said he heard the voice on the news and immediately knew it was zimmerman even though he wasnt watching the news and just heard the voice while typing on his computer. i think he too will be disregarded. its a wash as far as the voice recognition. i think john good's testimony will be more relevant to determining who was screaming.
two experts and two families counteract each other on voice.
two medical experts counteract each other on hits/punches.
two testimonies counteract each other on instigation.
John Good stands atop the pile.
|
On July 10 2013 04:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:32 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results. Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that. thats what they are trying to do. honestly, would you expect the family to say anything other than that it was their son's voice? the mother was cagey with her answers, but O'Mara was pretty clear in his questioning: she wanted to hear her son's voice on the call because she wanted to remember her son as the victim not as the person attacking another. same with zimmerman's mother/family. doesnt mean they are wrong or right, but you hear what you want to hear (confirmation bias). i am unsurprised that all of the witnesses stand on one side or the other based on whether they are friends/family of trayvon/zimmerman. the only honest answers i have seen were when zimmerman said it didnt sound like him (unsurprising since its a shitty recording) and the father who said it didnt sound like his son's voice (also based on shitty recording). so, good chance that the jurors will most likely ignore all those witnesses since they have confirmation bias? yes, they will cancel each other out. the most compelling testimony was the uncle who said he heard the voice on the news and immediately knew it was zimmerman even though he wasnt watching the news and just heard the voice while typing on his computer. i think he too will be disregarded. its a wash as far as the voice recognition. i think john good's testimony will be more relevant to determining who was screaming.
Personally it sounds like zimmerman, but regardless of who it sounds like I cant fathom any scenario with the current evidence that would have trayvon 1) screaming for help or 2) being able to scream multiple times before being shot.
am i missing something?
|
On July 10 2013 04:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:32 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results. Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that. thats what they are trying to do. honestly, would you expect the family to say anything other than that it was their son's voice? the mother was cagey with her answers, but O'Mara was pretty clear in his questioning: she wanted to hear her son's voice on the call because she wanted to remember her son as the victim not as the person attacking another. same with zimmerman's mother/family. doesnt mean they are wrong or right, but you hear what you want to hear (confirmation bias). i am unsurprised that all of the witnesses stand on one side or the other based on whether they are friends/family of trayvon/zimmerman. the only honest answers i have seen were when zimmerman said it didnt sound like him (unsurprising since its a shitty recording) and the father who said it didnt sound like his son's voice (also based on shitty recording). so, good chance that the jurors will most likely ignore all those witnesses since they have confirmation bias? yes, they will cancel each other out. the most compelling testimony was the uncle who said he heard the voice on the news and immediately knew it was zimmerman even though he wasnt watching the news and just heard the voice while typing on his computer. i think he too will be disregarded. its a wash as far as the voice recognition. i think john good's testimony will be more relevant to determining who was screaming. two experts and two families counteract each other on voice. two medical experts counteract each other on hits/punches. two testimonies counteract each other on instigation. John Good stands atop the pile.
Great for the defense. They do not have to prove Zimmerman unguilty, they only have to stop the prosecution from proving him guilty.
|
On July 10 2013 04:46 Msr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:32 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 10 2013 04:14 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 04:09 Kaitlin wrote:
So, how is this stuff with the playing of the tapes in the mayor's office important ? Who was present, all that ? Where is this going ? they want to show bias towards stating it is trayvon's voice. everyone was in the room because they wanted to support trayvon-that was the specific purpose for the meeting. low and behold, everyone thinks it was trayvon's voice. investigators said NOT to do a group setting, but the mayor, etc. disregarded their advice. also, the FBI witness (japanese guy) said that group settings will tend to bias the results. Ok, so it's basically just invalidating all of the Prosecution's witness testimony as to the voice being Trayvon's, in one fell swoop. I can see that. I thought the Defense was going after something "bigger", such as motivations for the prosecution or something. If it's solely to discredit the testimony of these witnesses, then I can definitely see that. thats what they are trying to do. honestly, would you expect the family to say anything other than that it was their son's voice? the mother was cagey with her answers, but O'Mara was pretty clear in his questioning: she wanted to hear her son's voice on the call because she wanted to remember her son as the victim not as the person attacking another. same with zimmerman's mother/family. doesnt mean they are wrong or right, but you hear what you want to hear (confirmation bias). i am unsurprised that all of the witnesses stand on one side or the other based on whether they are friends/family of trayvon/zimmerman. the only honest answers i have seen were when zimmerman said it didnt sound like him (unsurprising since its a shitty recording) and the father who said it didnt sound like his son's voice (also based on shitty recording). so, good chance that the jurors will most likely ignore all those witnesses since they have confirmation bias? yes, they will cancel each other out. the most compelling testimony was the uncle who said he heard the voice on the news and immediately knew it was zimmerman even though he wasnt watching the news and just heard the voice while typing on his computer. i think he too will be disregarded. its a wash as far as the voice recognition. i think john good's testimony will be more relevant to determining who was screaming. Personally it sounds like zimmerman, but regardless of who it sounds like I cant fathom any scenario with the current evidence that would have trayvon 1) screaming for help or 2) being able to scream multiple times before being shot. am i missing something?
i think its zimmerman based on John Good's testimony and the injuries, but i can see other people thinking differently.
|
They're not bringing up the toxicology ? People saying it's the last witness...wtf
|
I can't believe the prosecution hasn't focused more on what "pitch black" means and why John Goods testimony is suspect because of it.
|
On July 10 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
I can't believe the prosecution hasn't focused more on what "pitch black" means and why John Goods testimony is suspect because of it.
The problem is they would need to provide a reason for him to lie, rather than claim he was mistaken. All the Defense has to ask is "Are you sure? Even though it was dark, you are 100% sure of what you saw?" and the issue is sort of moot.
|
On July 10 2013 04:50 Microchaton wrote:
They're not bringing up the toxicology ? People saying it's the last witness...wtf
Well, there were 2 experts whose testimony they were going to proffer. One would be about the toxicology, and I'm fairly sure that the other is the cell phone stuff of Trayvon.
|
On July 10 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
I can't believe the prosecution hasn't focused more on what "pitch black" means and why John Goods testimony is suspect because of it.
people have said it was dark, but wasnt there external lighting on the back porches. i recall John Good came out of his backdoor. still a credible argument that his vision was impaired by the lack of light though. i do recall he testified to colors of the clothing rather than actually seeing faces or anything like that though. after the fact he confirmed who the person was based on clothes color.
|
On July 10 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
I can't believe the prosecution hasn't focused more on what "pitch black" means and why John Goods testimony is suspect because of it.
It being dark doesn't remove reasonable doubt.
They have to prove that John Good either could not possibly see the event, or that John Good is lying.
Anything less and its reasonably possible that John Good saw something that is line with his description; that provides reasonable doubt.
|
On July 10 2013 04:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
I can't believe the prosecution hasn't focused more on what "pitch black" means and why John Goods testimony is suspect because of it. The problem is they would need to provide a reason for him to lie, rather than claim he was mistaken. All the Defense has to ask is "Are you sure? Even though it was dark, you are 100% sure of what you saw?" and the issue is sort of moot.
All they needed to do was ask the gym owner, "Could you tell who was winning in a 1 on 1 fight if it was taking place in "pitch black"?"
|
This prosecutor is being really pathetic:
How is: "She said: Where's George?" really fucking relevant to the case?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2013 04:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:
This prosecutor is being really pathetic:
How is: "She said: Where's George?" really fucking relevant to the case?
objection: not relevant!
|
On July 10 2013 04:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:54 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
I can't believe the prosecution hasn't focused more on what "pitch black" means and why John Goods testimony is suspect because of it. The problem is they would need to provide a reason for him to lie, rather than claim he was mistaken. All the Defense has to ask is "Are you sure? Even though it was dark, you are 100% sure of what you saw?" and the issue is sort of moot. All they needed to do was ask the gym owner, "Could you tell who was winning in a 1 on 1 fight if it was taking place in "pitch black"?"
The defense doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Even if it was that dark, all his testimony has to show is that its reasonably plausible that Trayvon was continuing to attack Zimmerman after he had told them to stop.
Sure it's possible that he didn't see clearly and it was actually Zimmerman on top/Trayvon wasn't really punching but maybe flailing etc.... those are all possible; as possible as John Good's testimony being accurate.
They need to show that what John Good saw was wrong/impossible. Showing how he "may" have been mistaken doesn't prove guilt.
|
On July 10 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:57 farvacola wrote:On July 10 2013 04:54 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
I can't believe the prosecution hasn't focused more on what "pitch black" means and why John Goods testimony is suspect because of it. The problem is they would need to provide a reason for him to lie, rather than claim he was mistaken. All the Defense has to ask is "Are you sure? Even though it was dark, you are 100% sure of what you saw?" and the issue is sort of moot. All they needed to do was ask the gym owner, "Could you tell who was winning in a 1 on 1 fight if it was taking place in "pitch black"?" The defense doesn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Even if it was that dark, all his testimony has to show is that its reasonably plausible that Trayvon was continuing to attack Zimmerman after he had told them to stop. Sure it's possible that he didn't see clearly and it was actually Zimmerman on top/Trayvon wasn't really punching but maybe flailing etc.... those are all possible; as possible as John Good's testimony being accurate. They need to show that what John Good saw was wrong/impossible. Showing how he "may" have been mistaken doesn't prove guilt.
You need to get past the objective definitions of things like "reasonable doubt" and realize that the prosecutions case is weak enough to warrant them hoping that the jury alters it's understanding of the case as per instructions. No, disputing John Good's testimony doesn't prove guilt, but they don't have much else to go off of.
|
On July 10 2013 04:57 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 04:54 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2013 04:50 farvacola wrote:
I can't believe the prosecution hasn't focused more on what "pitch black" means and why John Goods testimony is suspect because of it. The problem is they would need to provide a reason for him to lie, rather than claim he was mistaken. All the Defense has to ask is "Are you sure? Even though it was dark, you are 100% sure of what you saw?" and the issue is sort of moot. All they needed to do was ask the gym owner, "Could you tell who was winning in a 1 on 1 fight if it was taking place in "pitch black"?"
As dAPhREAk said, they pretty much hashed it out that he could identify who was who by the the clothing color. It sounds like they hashed that out during the testimony.
|
interesting. a non-interested person saying it was zimmerman's voice. don't really have the issues of confirmation bias with her since she was just a neighbor and not really a friend.
edit: she is also black. bonus points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
