|
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 April 12 2012 09:35 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:19 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 09:14 aksfjh wrote:On April 12 2012 09:00 dAPhREAk wrote:I added the jury instruction on second degree murder to the OP for those who would like to review it. it is also below. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death. Not only do they have to show all of the elements of second degree murder, but they also apparently have to disprove the self defense claim. Specific to the second degree murder, I am not sure how they are going to be able to show "a deprived mind." Specifically, how are they going to show "ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent?" The only way I can see that they will be able to show that is if they show he hated Trayvon personally (or blacks generally) and killed for that reason. However, the evidence seems to show that it was not race related (and Zimmerman will parade his black friends and mentees in front of the Court if they try), and Zimmerman apparently did not know Trayvon before the incident. I think this is a classic case of prosecutors overpleading cases with the hope of a plea bargain to a lesser offense (e.g., manslaughter). The depraved could be justified through his vigilante attitude caught on the 911 call, as well as his repeated calls to 911 in the past. Not saying that's the way their going to go or that it would hold up in a court of law, but it's not really a stretch to see where it could come from. What's more, it seems like a small leap from getting past the self defense claim, as in, if they can prove it wasn't justified self defense, it wouldn't be hard to prove the 3rd point as well. It may even be part of how they claim it's not self defense. if the prosecutor gets to bring in evidence of his past "neighborhood watch" actions then Zimmerman can just point to all of his successful work in preventing crime and apprehending criminals. there were mixed reactions from the community, but i saw a lot of people coming forward and saying that he was great for the community. maybe you disagree, but do you think a reasonable jury would call his actions "depraved" when his own community approves of his actions? Do we know how unanimous the support is, and how well-informed his community supporters are about the entirety of his actions? If I heard someone in my neighborhood had made two 911 calls in the past year (just an example) that resulted in arrests and convictions, my immediate reaction would be "holy shit nicely done sir." If I then learned that he calls 911 a 50 times a month (again, an example I don't know the ratio Zimmerman maintained, or what is reasonable for a neighborhood watch leader), my judgment would change radically.
i do not know how unanimous it is. i read about a lot of people liking it; he contributed to catching at least one burglar; and apparently prevented one or two others. i also read that one dude complained to the HOA because of his actions (apparently zimmerman accosted another dude and questioned him). this is just media reports though, so i don't know if it is accurate and to what extent people have come forward.
|
On April 12 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:29 [Agony]x90 wrote:On April 12 2012 09:00 dAPhREAk wrote:I added the jury instruction on second degree murder to the OP for those who would like to review it. it is also below. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death. Not only do they have to show all of the elements of second degree murder, but they also apparently have to disprove the self defense claim. Specific to the second degree murder, I am not sure how they are going to be able to show "a deprived mind." Specifically, how are they going to show "ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent?" The only way I can see that they will be able to show that is if they show he hated Trayvon personally (or blacks generally) and killed for that reason. However, the evidence seems to show that it was not race related (and Zimmerman will parade his black friends and mentees in front of the Court if they try), and Zimmerman apparently did not know Trayvon before the incident. I think this is a classic case of prosecutors overpleading cases with the hope of a plea bargain to a lesser offense (e.g., manslaughter). Given the arguments about what was said on the phone and the history of Zimmerman - attitude towards blacks (whether justifiable or not), case of his run in with the cop some years ago, restraining order, etc. - I feel like the prosecutors wouldn't have as much of a problem getting this point through than the second. The second (The death was caused by [a] criminal act) has been and I believe will be the question of whether or not this was second degree murder, since current standing states that Zimmerman was within right to have shot and killed Trayson out of defense for himself. At least, if I were Zimmerman's lawyer, I wouldn't be shooting for the "ill will, evil intention" one as my trump card, since the wording of that makes it just as easy to dis spell as to prove, especially since there is actually potential evidence of this. The recording of "F-ing LSFKSLIFJSILFJ" seems to vary from person to person as to what was heard. You might say that I misheard, but 1000 people can say the same thing to you. Despite what audio analysis and what not will say, there is always the chance that the people sitting in the jury will pick their own words, regardless of what Zimmerman had said. Likewise, racism, ill will, hate, evil intent, etc are all legal in themselves (there's still no thought police), but only when coupled with "criminal" acts can it become illegal. The self defense case, though, would invalidate the fact that this was a criminal act, meaning that Zimmerman wouldn't be prosecuted on the full charges. Since there is no evidence beyond hearsay on this, at least much less so than the recording from the police, Zimmerman has a better chance to avoid evidence against him by playing this card. Of course, I guess it is possible that this could backfire, in that because there was a lack of evidence, it could be interpreted either way. Oh lastly, according to Trayson's parents, apparently they aren't looking for a guilty verdict, as they feel that is up to the courts entirely to decide, but they just want him arrested and tried, for the sake of justice, rather than letting him go without digging as deep as possible. Unfortunately, I don't think any one else will pay any heed to this and probably just want one extreme or the other: absolute guilt or complete acquittal. the prosecutor can't introduce evidence of zimmerman's past acts (e.g., prior arrests, reputation towards blacks). such evidence is commonly excluded because of the limited relevancy and incredible prejudice to the defendant. just because you read something on the interwebs doesn't mean that a jury will ever be able to hear it. 80% of the bullshit that has been fed to us by the media will never make it into a courtroom.
Good point. I would say though that the damage has been done. The media has already left their mark on this (and seems like will be the trend for some time unfortunately), and although we hope that the jury would make their judgment based on the actual trial, I don't know if this can happen.
On a separate note, I wonder how or if any changes will be made with regards to media coverage of high profile cases like this, Casey Anthony, OJ, etc. With the internet and social media the way it is now, it's almost impossible to curtail any of the adverse affects the media can have on the outcome. As far as justice is concerned, I think it poses a problem that I'm not sure how it could be avoided.
|
On April 12 2012 09:41 Hawke5811 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 09:35 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 09:29 [Agony]x90 wrote:On April 12 2012 09:00 dAPhREAk wrote:I added the jury instruction on second degree murder to the OP for those who would like to review it. it is also below. 7.4 MURDER—SECOND DEGREE
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Definitions.
An ―act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is ―imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind‖ if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death. Not only do they have to show all of the elements of second degree murder, but they also apparently have to disprove the self defense claim. Specific to the second degree murder, I am not sure how they are going to be able to show "a deprived mind." Specifically, how are they going to show "ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent?" The only way I can see that they will be able to show that is if they show he hated Trayvon personally (or blacks generally) and killed for that reason. However, the evidence seems to show that it was not race related (and Zimmerman will parade his black friends and mentees in front of the Court if they try), and Zimmerman apparently did not know Trayvon before the incident. I think this is a classic case of prosecutors overpleading cases with the hope of a plea bargain to a lesser offense (e.g., manslaughter). Given the arguments about what was said on the phone and the history of Zimmerman - attitude towards blacks (whether justifiable or not), case of his run in with the cop some years ago, restraining order, etc. - I feel like the prosecutors wouldn't have as much of a problem getting this point through than the second. The second (The death was caused by [a] criminal act) has been and I believe will be the question of whether or not this was second degree murder, since current standing states that Zimmerman was within right to have shot and killed Trayson out of defense for himself. At least, if I were Zimmerman's lawyer, I wouldn't be shooting for the "ill will, evil intention" one as my trump card, since the wording of that makes it just as easy to dis spell as to prove, especially since there is actually potential evidence of this. The recording of "F-ing LSFKSLIFJSILFJ" seems to vary from person to person as to what was heard. You might say that I misheard, but 1000 people can say the same thing to you. Despite what audio analysis and what not will say, there is always the chance that the people sitting in the jury will pick their own words, regardless of what Zimmerman had said. Likewise, racism, ill will, hate, evil intent, etc are all legal in themselves (there's still no thought police), but only when coupled with "criminal" acts can it become illegal. The self defense case, though, would invalidate the fact that this was a criminal act, meaning that Zimmerman wouldn't be prosecuted on the full charges. Since there is no evidence beyond hearsay on this, at least much less so than the recording from the police, Zimmerman has a better chance to avoid evidence against him by playing this card. Of course, I guess it is possible that this could backfire, in that because there was a lack of evidence, it could be interpreted either way. Oh lastly, according to Trayson's parents, apparently they aren't looking for a guilty verdict, as they feel that is up to the courts entirely to decide, but they just want him arrested and tried, for the sake of justice, rather than letting him go without digging as deep as possible. Unfortunately, I don't think any one else will pay any heed to this and probably just want one extreme or the other: absolute guilt or complete acquittal. the prosecutor can't introduce evidence of zimmerman's past acts (e.g., prior arrests, reputation towards blacks). such evidence is commonly excluded because of the limited relevancy and incredible prejudice to the defendant. just because you read something on the interwebs doesn't mean that a jury will ever be able to hear it. 80% of the bullshit that has been fed to us by the media will never make it into a courtroom. Good point. I would say though that the damage has been done. The media has already left their mark on this (and seems like will be the trend for some time unfortunately), and although we hope that the jury would make their judgment based on the actual trial, I don't know if this can happen. On a separate note, I wonder how or if any changes will be made with regards to media coverage of high profile cases like this, Casey Anthony, OJ, etc. With the internet and social media the way it is now, it's almost impossible to curtail any of the adverse affects the media can have on the outcome. As far as justice is concerned, I think it poses a problem that I'm not sure how it could be avoided.
good article addressing media influence on murder cases.
http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/issues/media
|
Is Zimmerman going to be charged with a federal crime?
|
On April 12 2012 09:58 Diomedes7 wrote:
Is Zimmerman going to be charged with a federal crime?
I seriously doubt it. And if he is...it will be after the state trial is over.
|
On April 12 2012 09:58 Diomedes7 wrote:
Is Zimmerman going to be charged with a federal crime?
Yes. But not sure what crime. In most criminal case, the prosecutor throws every charge and the kitchen sink at you. It's why in the Jana 6 case, you end with the silliness of calming shoes are a deadly weapon; which is common place. Prosecutor do this mostly because there is no down side. And who know, maybe the prosecutor can get the silly charge to stick. Or they can use it to scare the person in to taking a plea bargain for a crime the prosecutor had no hope of winning in court.
But in this media driven case, the charges are likely to be narrower then would be common place. Also I don't see a plea bargain bring an option. The Special prosecutor may of got away with throwing this to a Grand Jury and saying "Justice system in action" But with personally bring charges (which comes off as what you believe), the people will not be happy with a plea bargain.
Look at the Hilton DUI case. What happen to her would happen to 99% of us. The justice system cost a lot of money. And our (the US) ideal of our justice system cost much more then anyone is willing to pay (or be tax) for.
EDIT: It's 2nd degree murder. (it will also be manslaughter and such). I misread the federal part. And yes. it's unlikely. The FBI only came in to look in to civil right violation. And honestly, the FBI was only there because of public pressure.With the state bring charges, the FBI will just fade in to the background.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/11/zimmerman-to-be-charged-by-florida-special-prosecutor-report-says/
I do hate posting foxnews on the internet. but it was the 1st link when googled " Zimmerman charged".
|
Unless they have some more evidence hidden up their sleeve there is no way they are going to get 2nd degree murder off of this unless the jury is emotionally attached to the case.
The worst I see Zimmerman getting is a handful of years for manslaughter.
|
On April 12 2012 12:27 Ungrateful wrote:
Unless they have some more evidence hidden up their sleeve there is no way they are going to get 2nd degree murder off of this unless the jury is emotionally attached to the case.
The worst I see Zimmerman getting is a handful of years for manslaughter.
Got your mind made up before the trial starts and the evidence comes out?
I hope you don't get a jury summons!
;P
|
Now we'll finally start to hear the truth. Too bad it's already been turned into a circus.
|
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction.
|
What I'm reading... is that Florida's 10/20/Life law basically means if they had charged him with manslaughter instead.. and he was convicted and sentenced to 6 months... he still would get 25 additional years tacked on to the FRONT of that sentence due to their 10/20/Life law. (if he was convicted of using a gun in a felony adds automatic 25 years).
So basically...if they maxed out a manslaughter sentence and gave him 15 years.. he serves 40 years (25 gun + 15 manslaughter). Basically a life in prison sentence. He would be released when he was 70.
Murder 2 is going to be harder to prove. Alot harder to prove.
|
So, I wonder if there is any actual, you know, police work-related evidence, besides phone calls to dispatchers, that were helpful in finally bringing an arrest.
We see the police video footage (blurry as it is) of the stock cameras in the department. No pictures. You'd think if someone shoots someone claiming self-defense, the police would want to take a ****ing picture.
Will we see those pictures? Will we see witness testimony taken by officers themselves immediately after the incident?
Or is this really it? The police set Zimmerman free after shooting an unarmed minor, because.....
We all decry the "circus" that has come from all this --- well maybe a circus is what it takes to find justice when the purveyors of justice are either biased, moronically incompetent, or both.
I still think there is so much rotten about this. Zimmerman isn't the problem.
|
I really appreciate what the OP has stated, however I think that the "Biggest Civil Rights Case" needs to be removed. This is not an issue of Racism, it is a self-defense issue. For instance, they say that it was a White-On-Black crime, when the Alleged Murderer Zimmerman is Hispanic, as definied by the Census, anyone who is partially hispanic/latino, is hispanic, so where the media is hyping this as a "Racist Crime" is completely 100% absurd, it is the same thing for any legislator or politician, even the president overstepped his bounds. Take this case for instance:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/taco-bell-shooting-victim-was-holding-leash-not-weapon-4-4-2012
I could contact every congressman I know and say that the man shot him because he was white, and the guy is a "Black Panther Supporter" and that it was a hate crime, and that the 22-year-old who shot him hates whitey, but yet it is still the same. Race doesn't have much to do with self defense, if I was on a neighborhood watch and anyone who was walking around with a hoody hiding out in the shadows, I would say "Hey what are you doing." It has nothing to do with race by any means, and everyone should be outraged that it is even being considered a matter of "white-on-black."
Statistically (2010 FBI Investigation) Black-on-white crime is way higher (447 vs 218 in 2010), so why weren't those 447 cases also tried as hate crimes? Because it is outrageous to think that everything is a hate crime. I think that this idea that everything is a hate crime and is outrageous, I am sick of my community blaming things because they are "purple" or "pink" or "black" or "white" it is one of the biggest social problems in America, nobody can take responsibility for their own actions, and I do not think that Zimmerman or any "sane" man would outright shoot someone because they were wearing a hoody. Until the case begins and evidence is shown in court, there is absolutely no way to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, or rather there is no way that they can prove "Beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did in fact murder Treyvon Martin in cold blood because he was black.
Also on the link I posted, the man gunned down a 29 year-old mentally handicapped person, what is meant by it, is to show that it isn't a racist/hate crime, just what it was, A man killing another.
|
On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction.
you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman).
|
On April 12 2012 13:38 bayside871 wrote:I really appreciate what the OP has stated, however I think that the "Biggest Civil Rights Case" needs to be removed. This is not an issue of Racism, it is a self-defense issue. For instance, they say that it was a White-On-Black crime, when the Alleged Murderer Zimmerman is Hispanic, as definied by the Census, anyone who is partially hispanic/latino, is hispanic, so where the media is hyping this as a "Racist Crime" is completely 100% absurd, it is the same thing for any legislator or politician, even the president overstepped his bounds. Take this case for instance: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/taco-bell-shooting-victim-was-holding-leash-not-weapon-4-4-2012I could contact every congressman I know and say that the man shot him because he was white, and the guy is a "Black Panther Supporter" and that it was a hate crime, and that the 22-year-old who shot him hates whitey, but yet it is still the same. Race doesn't have much to do with self defense, if I was on a neighborhood watch and anyone who was walking around with a hoody hiding out in the shadows, I would say "Hey what are you doing." It has nothing to do with race by any means, and everyone should be outraged that it is even being considered a matter of "white-on-black." Statistically (2010 FBI Investigation) Black-on-white crime is way higher (447 vs 218 in 2010), so why weren't those 447 cases also tried as hate crimes? Because it is outrageous to think that everything is a hate crime. I think that this idea that everything is a hate crime and is outrageous, I am sick of my community blaming things because they are "purple" or "pink" or "black" or "white" it is one of the biggest social problems in America, nobody can take responsibility for their own actions, and I do not think that Zimmerman or any "sane" man would outright shoot someone because they were wearing a hoody. Until the case begins and evidence is shown in court, there is absolutely no way to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, or rather there is no way that they can prove "Beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did in fact murder Treyvon Martin in cold blood because he was black. Also on the link I posted, the man gunned down a 29 year-old mentally handicapped person, what is meant by it, is to show that it isn't a racist/hate crime, just what it was, A man killing another.
civil rights are broader than just race related issues. race is certainly an issue in this case, but its not the only issue. let me list some of the civil rights issues i see in this case: an unarmed teenager was killed but the police allegedly didn't adequately investigate or prosecute the killer; allegations that the reason they didn't investigate was race related (they allegedly don't care about african-americans); the media's rush to judgment of the killer and misreporting (including tampering with tapes that later resulted in the firing of a producer); criminal procedure issues, including due process and probable cause; the stand your ground law itself; etc. etc.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-rights/
|
On April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman).
Are we sure that the eyewitness is legitimate? My impression was that it was just someone trying to get attention.
|
On April 12 2012 15:09 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman). Are we sure that the eyewitness is legitimate? My impression was that it was just someone trying to get attention.
if you wanted to get attention, why would you remain anonymous?
the two ladies who said they heard trayvon cry for help (but didnt see anyone) were the ones getting paid to do the media rounds. if anyone was seeking attention, they would more likely be the ones.
|
On April 12 2012 15:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 15:09 Voltaire wrote:On April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman). Are we sure that the eyewitness is legitimate? My impression was that it was just someone trying to get attention. if you wanted to get attention, why would you remain anonymous? the two ladies who said they heard trayvon cry for help (but didnt see anyone) were the ones getting paid to do the media rounds. if anyone was seeking attention, they would more likely be the ones.
Well, I guess the point is that there are conflicting eyewitness reports. Therefore, I think the audio evidence will be the only tangible thing pointing to either the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman. I don't think the recording has been really analyzed yet, not in a legitimate high profile crime lab where they'll probably try to compare the frequencies to a recording of Zimmerman's voice or something of that nature.
|
On April 12 2012 15:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 15:09 Voltaire wrote:On April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman). Are we sure that the eyewitness is legitimate? My impression was that it was just someone trying to get attention. if you wanted to get attention, why would you remain anonymous? the two ladies who said they heard trayvon cry for help (but didnt see anyone) were the ones getting paid to do the media rounds. if anyone was seeking attention, they would more likely be the ones.
They admit they didn't actually SEE who was yelling, so I don't know why their opinion on who was screaming even matters.
The prosecutor must have some kind of new information or I don't think she would go forward. Right now it seems very easy to present lots of reasonable doubt.
|
On April 12 2012 15:14 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 15:11 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 15:09 Voltaire wrote:On April 12 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2012 13:22 Voltaire wrote:
I think this case largely hinges on the audio evidence in the recording. Unless some new, major piece of evidence comes out (possible but unlikely), that will probably be the deciding factor. If the audio experts determine it's Trayvon yelling, Zimmerman gets charged, if it's Zimmerman screaming for help, he walks.
That's my prediction. you seriously think audio is the most important piece of evidence? what about the eye witness (John) that said Zimmerman was yelling for help while Trayvon was pummeling him? that would rank a little higher in my view than experts fighting over what the audio means (especially considering the best "expert" already said its 50-50 whether it was zimmerman). Are we sure that the eyewitness is legitimate? My impression was that it was just someone trying to get attention. if you wanted to get attention, why would you remain anonymous? the two ladies who said they heard trayvon cry for help (but didnt see anyone) were the ones getting paid to do the media rounds. if anyone was seeking attention, they would more likely be the ones. Well, I guess the point is that there are conflicting eyewitness reports. Therefore, I think the audio evidence will be the only tangible thing pointing to either the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman. I don't think the recording has been really analyzed yet, not in a legitimate high profile crime lab where they'll probably try to compare the frequencies to a recording of Zimmerman's voice or something of that nature.
there were two eyewitnesses: John and Austin. Austin didn't see much though. there were multiple people who heard things, but did not see anything. if you can find an "expert" to say that zimmerman was not the one screaming for help, which one expert said is 50-50 at this point, i guarantee you that zimmerman will find an expert that says it was likely that it was zimmerman who was screaming for help. if the prosecution's best evidence is the audio recordings then they should just drop the case now because its a waste of time and money.
also, dont forget its "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict. someone saying its 50-50 that it was zimmerman is by its nature reasonable doubt because there is a 50% chance it was zimmerman. combine that with John's testimony and presumably zimmerman's testimony, and state's case isnt looking so great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
