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

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

The video isn't evidence? His clothes aren't evidence? The 911 calls aren't evidence? What exactly do you call evidence? Zimmermans word?

We don't have ALL the evidence. We have the evidence that is available, and based on that evidence there is plenty of probable cause to arrest him.

I really would like to think what you consider evidence.

Evidence

evidence n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs, and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge, and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence. Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial, violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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.

Two separate people analysed the voice and said it was not Zimmerman. Two totally different people in the field with different techniques..


Updated at 2 p.m. ET: The voice heard crying for help on a 911 call just before Trayvon Martin was shot to death was not that of George Zimmerman, according to TWO forensic voice identification experts, one of whom told MSNBC on Sunday that he believes the evidence is strong enough to use in court.

Wheres my million?

BTW if this proves that he lied about this part of the story when he said it was he who was screaming for help, it calls his entire account into question and could be the nail in the coffin.

What was the intent of NBC in altering the tapes?

reply to post by pizzanazi75


why do you ignore the 2nd expert who says he " doesn't believe in that technology in a court room setting" then goes on to basically guess that it was TM.

why wouldnt he belive in it? because its not reliable perhaps?

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

why do you ignore the 2nd expert who says he " doesn't believe in that technology in a court room setting" then goes on to basically guess that it was TM.

why wouldnt he belive in it? because its not reliable perhaps?

edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

I didn't ignore him...he came to same conclusion.....why have you ignored him? You took a quote out of context to try and fit your justifications. That shows how you play the game.

Just because he doesn't believe in that tech (he's talking about the method the other expert used...he must think his technique is better) in a court room setting does not mean he doesn't believe the science shouldn't be used in a courtroom. And frankly the courts disagree with him, because it is allowed to be used.

You may not want it to be reliable, but it is.

Wow! Another three whole pages go by. That's 6 pages worth of opportunities you've had to answer my questions Pops. But yet again you refuse.

I'll interpret your lack of answers as meaning you agree with all of my points. The screams weren't of Zimmerman. The "beating" never happened. Zimmerman was simply an overzealous armed street thug who thought he was an authority. He went around harassing everyone in the neighborhood because he thought it was his job. And an innocent 17 year old child is dead for it.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


its strange one expert doesn't think its reliable but your claiming it is.

i admit i dont know if its 100% reliable or not.

if it's not 100% reliable and the eye witness who says he saw zimmerman screaming for help is accurate then we must accept the voice people in that article are wrong. Unless TM is screaming for help at the start then its zimmerman later (unlikely)

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

its strange one expert doesn't think its reliable but your claiming it is.

i admit i dont know if its 100% reliable or not.

if it's not 100% reliable and the eye witness who says he saw zimmerman screaming for help is accurate then we must accept the voice people in that article are wrong.

edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

One expert didn't say it wasn't reliable. He said he didn't think it should be used in a courtroom There is a big difference between saying something is reliable or not. Example. Video tape is reliable but it is not allowed to used in the Supreme Court. So just because someone doesn't think something should be used in a court room doesn't mean they believe it is unreliable.

How exactly would the eye witness know exactly who is screaming? It was dark by every ones account and he says he saw 2 people on the ground scuffling or something of the like...how on earth would he know which person was screaming for sure? So you think an eye witness in the dark saying it is Zimmerman screaming is more reliable than scientific voice analysis?

Eye witness testimony is the least reliable in a court of law. It is important in putting the pieces together. If science contradicts what an eye witness says, like the science contradicts your eye witness, then the court would believe the science over the eye witness. You see how that works? I'm sure you don't.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


why is video tape not allowed in the supreme court?


also i dont know how reliable the voice analysis tech is so its difficult to comment on it.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

why is video tape not allowed in the supreme court?


also i dont know how reliable the voice analysis tech is so its difficult to comment on it.

edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

Im not sure why the supreme court doesn't allow video camera's, they allow audio. I was just trying to make the point that just because something isn't allowed in court doesn't mean it isn't reliable. And i think we can all agree video is reliable.

At least one of the voice analysis techniques used is a type that is admissible in court. So I would consider that to be reliable. If this case makes it to court you can bet for sure that voice analysis will be allowed by the judge.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


well the way things usually go in america is you get one expert for the defense and one for the prosecution and they say opposite things. Usually cancelling each other out. Its a big problem when you can hire an expert witness to basically say what you want.

but if there is a unanimous 100% confirmation that its TMs voice then that changes the case a whole lot.

p.s i just read video evidence can be used and has been used in the supremem court. Although it did say it was unusual.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

well the way things usually go in america is you get one expert for the defense and one for the prosecution and they say opposite things. Usually cancelling each other out. Its a big problem when you can hire an expert witness to basically say what you want.

edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

Your right about getting two experts saying different things, however, they do not cancel each other out to a jury. A jury will ultimately believe one or the other. One side may hire an expert to say 'anything they want' ... but most juries can see right through those types of tactics.

reply to post by pizzanazi75

Have you ever sat on a jury or ever gone through jury selection and been released?

I have!!! and GogoVicMorrow has a good grasp and does not have his head Up or Under anything on the issue.

Get Real!
Have a great day

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

well the way things usually go in america is you get one expert for the defense and one for the prosecution and they say opposite things. Usually cancelling each other out. Its a big problem when you can hire an expert witness to basically say what you want.

but if there is a unanimous 100% confirmation that its TMs voice then that changes the case a whole lot.

p.s i just read video evidence can be used and has been used in the supremem court. Although it did say it was unusual.

edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

I didn't say anything about video evidence being allowed to be usded in a case in the supreme court. I said cameras cant be used in the court. I was making a point. Not about what evidence can be use, just in general that just because something isn't allowed in court doesn't mean it isn't reliable.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


well video evidence has been used in the supreme court. www.newser.com...

i dont know how the audio tech can be 100% reliable from phone recordings in this situation. I think it would be quite easy for any defense to cloud the issue. You dont even get the full frequency range over a telephone.

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Have you ever sat on a jury or ever gone through jury selection and been released?

I have!!! and GogoVicMorrow has a good grasp and does not have his head Up or Under anything on the issue.

Get Real!
Have a great day

Neither one of you have a good grasp on this issue. And if you in fact have sat on jury, I sure feel sorry for all those involved.

articles.orlandosentinel.com... er-zimmerman


if this is true, then it ends the debate. That is if he was indeed walking back to his vehicle when Mr. Martin approached him and attacked him. Now, if Mr Zimmerman instigated the physical altercation, then the self defense claim is null and void, but to make it null and void he would have had to be the one to instigate. That means he would have had to begin the physical act of the fight. There is nothing illegal about following a suspicious person and asking them a question or two (if that is indeed what Mr.Zimmerman did) If he did after that move to return to his vehicle and Mr.Martin then took off after him and then assaulted him by punching him in the nose, then slamming his head into the ground, well then Mr.Martin is the aggressor from a legal perspective. Which would mean that Mr.Zimmerman had every right to defend himself against his attacker. If there truly is evidence showing wounds or marks on Mr.Zimmerman's head, well then the self defense claim would stand up.

Remember, the prosecution has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Mr.Zimmerman acted maliciously and not in self defense. If there is any reasonable doubt, then Mr.Zimmerman is acquitted.

Originally posted by rebellender
GogoVicMorrow has a good grasp and does not have his head Up or Under anything on the issue.

Get Real!
Have a great day

Because you agree with him?

All that means is - - you agree with him.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Have you ever sat on a jury or ever gone through jury selection and been released?

I have!!! and GogoVicMorrow has a good grasp and does not have his head Up or Under anything on the issue.

Get Real!
Have a great day

Neither one of you have a good grasp on this issue. And if you in fact have sat on jury, I sure feel sorry for all those involved.

I'd look at all the facts and evidence
public opinion does not bother me
but as you see i am not *normal*
id hang the jury if i HAD too.
So an innocent man did no go to jail
as long as the evidence is the same

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

well video evidence has been used in the supreme court although the article i read said that was unusual.

i dont know how the audio tech can be 100% reliable from phone recordings in this situation. I think it would be quite easy for any defense to cloud the issue. You dont even get the full frequency range over a telephone.

Again, I never said video couldn't be used a evidence in the Supreme Court.

Its easy for a defense attorney to cloud any evidence. That is there job when there client is guilty and the evidence points towards there client. If it is Zimmermans voice then his attorney won't have to 'cloud' the experts. The only need to try and discredit is if it isn't him, and a jury will see that as well.

A court of law disagrees with you. This technology has been used to disprove other defendants in court. It will probably be used in this case as well, as it is more reliable than any eye witness testimony.