Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by rom12345

 

Exactly. It will really be hard to find 12 people plus alternates that haven't heard something about this case. Not only because of the news, but because of the people who are "so outraged" that they parrot the biased story to everyone they know. Even people that don't watch t.v. are going to hear about it when the President starts talking about it. Then Oprah covers a different group of people.

It is just too biased and too wide spread.

You just proved you don't understand jury selection. You don't have to find 12 people who have NEVER heard of teh case. Just because you are aware a case does not dismiss you from serving on a jury.

Jeez.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

So if on the spur of the moment Trayvon was intent on killing him and Zimmerman was intent on saving his life??
I don't get the point you are trying to make.

I think you both mean premeditation. If it was premeditated, which is highly unlikely but has been implied here, then he probably wouldn't have called 9-11. People usually don't change a mission to the store to a mission to commit their first murder at the drop of a hat though.

No he doesn't me premeditation. He means intent. There is a difference but Im not explaining to you because I know you understand it.

reply to post by pizzanazi75

NO SAMPLE OF TREYVON IS NEEDED TO RULE OUT ZIMMERMAN !!!!!!!!

at the same time how can zimmerman be ruled out unless they have a voice sample of him in a panicked situation screaming for help? peoples voices can change dramatically depending on situation.

Also there's eye witness who claims TM was on top of zimmerman it would be very strange if TM was the one screaming for help in this situation.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

NO SAMPLE OF TREYVON IS NEEDED TO RULE OUT ZIMMERMAN !!!!!!!!

at the same time how can zimmerman be ruled out unless they have a voice sample of him in a panicked situation screaming for help? peoples voices can change dramatically depending on situation.

Also there's eye witness who claims TM was on top of zimmerman it would be very strange if TM was the one screaming for help in this situation.

Your statement proves you didn't read any of the articles coming out now or you don't understand the science of the voice analysis. You don't have to have a sample of someone screaming to determine that the screams are not theirs. Every voice is unique, but we all have similarities. Its the similarities that are measured. Zimmerman only matched the similarities by 48% you need 90% to be a match. So the fact they are analyzing screams compared normal voices is the science of it. And so that other idiot doesn't come back with his 50/50 argument you don't need a sample of Treyvon to rule out Zimmerman.

It doesn't matter if they analyze screaming or speaking voice....his patterns do not match enough to be a match. That is science, that is a fact. Zimmerman is not screaming on that tape, so that only leave one other person. Treyvon.

And I am sure that if a sample of Treyvon is available it will be analyzed and I would bet heavily that it matches in the upper 90% making it a confirmed match...but regardless even if Treyvons voice is never analyzed it still doesn't matter.

....Another benefit of modern biometric analysis, Owen said, is it doesn't require an "in context" comparison. In other words, Owen didn't need a sample of Zimmerman screaming in order to compare his voice to the call. .....

Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Actually I do know about it, you don't.
The defense is going to have a hard time picking people that aren't tainted. Yes you can know have heard about it but when 70 percent of people that know about it want his blood then how can you be certain you aren't selecting someone with motives?

I never once, by the way, said that you can't be a juror if you have heard of the case. I was just implying that most people that know about it have been manipulated.

Unfortunately all they have seen is a 14 year old Treyvon and not the 17 year old one. It will make it hard not to be biased. I know having gold teeth and tattoos and flipping the camera off doesn't make you a bad person, but it paints a different picture to a 14 year old with skittles and arizona.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


No.. i know what he meant. You are apparently having trouble catching my meaning.
If he truly meant intent then it made absolutely no sense. Intent would hurt his case, premeditation would help.

He said intent can happen spur of the moment. Ok.. so what? His intent was kill the guy was there ever a question? If there was premeditation you would have a point.

I wasn't literally saying he meant this, i don't know why i give a damn if you think I know what I am talking about because I know I do, but giving someone you are debating a break buy correcting them to point out a flaw is a debate tactic. Nevermind. Go with intent it is a dumb thing to discuss.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


The test was based on a 911 recording of zimmerman talking very low. When they have him yelling or talking louder the test will be worth something, who did this test? Someone for CNN?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Actually I do know about it, you don't.
The defense is going to have a hard time picking people that aren't tainted. Yes you can know have heard about it but when 70 percent of people that know about it want his blood then how can you be certain you aren't selecting someone with motives?

I never once, by the way, said that you can't be a juror if you have heard of the case. I was just implying that most people that know about it have been manipulated.

Unfortunately all they have seen is a 14 year old Treyvon and not the 17 year old one. It will make it hard not to be biased. I know having gold teeth and tattoos and flipping the camera off doesn't make you a bad person, but it paints a different picture to a 14 year old with skittles and arizona.

That's what jury selection is....you can never be for 100% certain who you are getting. Have you ever sat on a jury or ever gone through jury selection and been released? An impartial jury will be found, not in Sanford, it will be moved, but it will be found and he will get a fair trial. How did they seat a jury for OJ, or Casey Anthony, or Scott Peterson, or any of the other national cases that have come up.

What purpose do you have to show that pic of him? Is that a threatening pic to you? Of all the pics I have seen of Treyvon from 12 to 17 not one has looked 'thuggish' or any different than any other kids pics. When you see black do you see scary? Is that all it takes... I mean Treyvon was baby faced kid, so even his pics at 17 make him appear younger. Why does he scare you so much?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Can you not read?

....Another benefit of modern biometric analysis, Owen said, is it doesn't require an "in context" comparison. In other words, Owen didn't need a sample of Zimmerman screaming in order to compare his voice to the call. .....

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

No.. i know what he meant. You are apparently having trouble catching my meaning.
If he truly meant intent then it made absolutely no sense. Intent would hurt his case, premeditation would help.

He said intent can happen spur of the moment. Ok.. so what? His intent was kill the guy was there ever a question? If there was premeditation you would have a point.

I wasn't literally saying he meant this, i don't know why i give a damn if you think I know what I am talking about because I know I do, but giving someone you are debating a break buy correcting them to point out a flaw is a debate tactic. Nevermind. Go with intent it is a dumb thing to discuss.

Intent absolutely can happen in the spur of the moment. Premeditation can not happen in the spur of the moment.

George Zimmerman may not have premeditated Treyvons murder but once any type of physical contact happened his intent happened in that spur of the moment. I know you wont understand it but during the scuffle at some point Zimmerman in the spur of them moment ... formed his intent, knowing he had a fun, he formed his intent to kill.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Yeah.. I see what it says. Who paid for the analysis? That is what is important here.
The media has show it's true face on this one.

Sorry if, unlike you, I don't want to put a guy in prison for 20 years if he was defending himself.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


You still don't get it.. intent doesn't matter. What intent are you trying to prove that we don't already know. Intent to kill? Okay, have it. See? Now you got intent to kill the guy, but it was a waste of time because we already knew. He was justified in his intent and success in killing the guy. You should have been going after premeditation.

Oh and actually you are wrong again dude, premeditation can happen in a split second. Legally, I promise you look it up, you can be found guilty of premeditation if it is only a second of premeditation.

Wrong again guy.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Yeah.. I see what it says. Who paid for the analysis? That is what is important here.
The media has show it's true face on this one.

Sorry if, unlike you, I don't want to put a guy in prison for 20 years if he was defending himself.

Ok so now the science is wrong because you don't like who paid for it. What if you found out Zimmermans people paid for it? Would that change your mind?

I don't think he should get 20 years for defending himself..but it doesn't appear by all the evidence coming out that he was defending himself...but what should Treyvon get for defending himself? A coffin? That doesn't seem like justice.

Voice analysis works like handwriting comparison or fingerprints. You only need one sample to either rule out or make a positive match. You could have a set of fingerprints and 2 possible people to compare them to. If they don't match 1 of them, there's only one person left. It's either a match or it's not.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Didn't say science is wrong.
You have a great way of interpreting things. Don't expect the media to be unbiased all of a sudden. I bet you a million dollars another station can have a "scientist" of equal standing say the exact opposite of whoever did this one. Or someone even that says it there is a huge margin of error if the voice isn't in context.

It is what they don't tell you that is important. Not what they do tell you.
You obviously are either incapable of understanding or incapable of being fair in a debate.

reply to post by CoherentlyConfused


I am sure you are no expert.
So what if Zimmerman wasn't using his regular voice, but a whisper, or changing it in any way. Can you say for certain that they can get legit results matching someone talking quietly into a phone to someone screaming in the distance?

I can't wait to see more results on this.

reply to post by pizzanazi75



See you have still never given one scrap of evidence that it wasn't self defense. You can say you have over and over, but you haven't. Absolutely no one has. There is not one person that can say that GZ murdered this guy and it wasn't self defense.

There is no evidence. Stop saying there is.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

You still don't get it.. intent doesn't matter. What intent are you trying to prove that we don't already know. Intent to kill? Okay, have it. See? Now you got intent to kill the guy, but it was a waste of time because we already knew. He was justified in his intent and success in killing the guy. You should have been going after premeditation.

Oh and actually you are wrong again dude, premeditation can happen in a split second. Legally, I promise you look it up, you can be found guilty of premeditation if it is only a second of premeditation.

Wrong again guy.

edit on 2-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Nobody has ever suggested premeditation you are grasping at straws. We don't know when Zimmerman formed his intent to kill, but at some point he did, and he carried it out. That intent could have been made 1 second before shooting the gun.

Premeditation involves planning of a crime. Now, he could have started planning his crime during the 'stalk' but if he did then he moves his charges up from manslaughter to murder 1.

Its up to a court to decide if he was justified in his intent to kill...that is all anyone is asking for, well except for you people who think that just because he says he was defending himself then we should believe him. Justice for all.....all except Treyvon with you people.

I mean the lead investigator wanted to charge him that night. Do you think he should be fired for being such a crappy investigator if he wanted to bring charges against an innocent man? Or do you think he knows what the hell he is doing that is why he has the job. He was overruled by the State Attorney on a Sunday night in bad weather, at the actual crime scene or SPD.....that very night. Not the local DA the state attorney. Who has ever heard of the State Attorney coming out to a crime scene that very night? And THEN overruling the lead homicide investigator.Only people who are covering something up.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

See you have still never given one scrap of evidence that it wasn't self defense. You can say you have over and over, but you haven't. Absolutely no one has. There is not one person that can say that GZ murdered this guy and it wasn't self defense.

There is no evidence. Stop saying there is.

Yes we have. You have chosen to ignore the evidence presented to you. There is a difference between evidence not being presented and you choosing to ignore it. It out there for you to see you just don't want to.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


It doesn't matter, that is what you aren't getting, his INTENT to kill and his success spawned from it were justified.

As for the evidence, you can keep saying that, but none of the things you have put forth are actually evidence.
Maybe you need the definition of what evidence is, you can search that yourself, but there is actually none in this case that suggests it was anything but self defense. Those are the facts, that is why there were no charges to arrest him. That is why the prosecutor thinks he will walk. There is no evidence.