Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...9#.T5FSvKVSQ06

Or go directly to the picture here:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_g...0419_wmain.jpg

The text say that this picture was taken the night of the shooting by one of the neighbors at the scene.

I suspect the police have pictures also and if not then it begs the question why not? They photograph the crap out of auto accidents in order to reconstruct what happened. It would seem like SOP.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

There has already been one expert that said that Owen analysis has no scientific basis.

I disagree with that expert, interestingly enough. I believe the method Owen discusses DOES meet the standard for admissibility in the federal court system.

I don't think it meets the Frye standard, which is required in Florida.

Again, the difference between those two standards: in federal court, Daubert says that if there's an expert that can be shown to be qualified (Owen certainly is) and he can explain a set of facts that will help the jury reach a relevant conclusion (he says he can) then his testimony can be admitted.

Florida's use of the Frye standard means that one additional hurdle must be overcome: the method, technology, or technique must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in its particular scientific or technical field. So far as I can tell, Easy Voice Biometrics does not meet that standard.

So Dr. Wayman is incorrect on the law, in my view.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Magiver

I suspect the police have pictures also and if not then it begs the question why not? They photograph the crap out of auto accidents in order to reconstruct what happened. It would seem like SOP.

The interesting thing about the picture was it appears to have been taken before the EMTs worked on him. The blood is still streaming down his head. I read somewhere that the Sanford police took a bunch of pictures of Zimmerman at the police station. I'm sure the police took a bunch of pictures of the crime scene after Zimmerman left.

BTW, The bail hearing is streaming live at

http://www.wftv.com/s/watchlive/

[Magiver]

I disagree with Bricker that it meets the Frye standard IF it's based on the singular expertise of recently introduced software without any review. I could claim I have invented a truth meter using a divining rod and wave 400 personally documented trials show it works. Just for argument's sake I have a PHD in psychology. As a defense lawyer I'd demand a blind test of the system using at least 100 people to demonstrate it can distinguish between screams and regular voice patterns. In other words, expert testimony using the Vocilator 2000 needs some kind of verification the thing works because it doesn't even have the history of lie detectors which to my knowledge are not admissible in court.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Magiver

I suspect the police have pictures also and if not then it begs the question why not? They photograph the crap out of auto accidents in order to reconstruct what happened. It would seem like SOP.

We can only hope that the cops took photos.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

BTW, The bail hearing is streaming live at

http://www.wftv.com/s/watchlive/

huh, testimony by phone. I did not know that was done.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by PatriotX

Did Serino claim this somewhere?
I would love to be able to link to this if he did so I could use it.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-mar...ry?id=16011674

Originally Posted by from the article

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Were there statements that AFTER the PD completed their investigation they did not have enough to arrest Zimmerman?

The statements from the SA's office that I've been talking appear to be an attempt to deflect blame from the prosecution regarding Zimmerman's non-arrest before the case was transferred to the state. I haven't seen any statements from the SA's office about insufficient probable cause after the PD completed their investigation.

I know that the SPD issued a statement about why they didn't arrest Z in February.
In that statement they use the phrase "at the time" twice to qualify the idea of "insufficient evidence" to arrest Zimmerman.

I'm not talking about the SPD, though. I'm talking about the state attorney. I'm questioning why they chose to deviate from the "insufficent evidence" message offered by the PD, when that would have been the most logical path to take if it were true.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigT

This seems to contradict how trials are supposed to work, honestly. Having the judge decide whether the evidence is convincing seems to be giving the judge too much power. The other system is better, as it allows the jury to decide if the science is compelling, just like they would for any other evidence.

I mean, it's not as if the other side can't produce an expert that argues that the other expert is wrong, right? The whole "dueling facts" is what our justice system appears to be based on.

I'm not really sure which system you're applauding and which you're condemning.

In both Frye and Daubert, the judge must make a threshold determination about admissibility. A case called General Electric v. Joiner is, in fact, part of what's sometimes called the "Daubert Trilogy" because it affirms the "gatekeeper" function of the trial court -- not to admit expert testiony at all unless it passes the basic rules set out in Daubert.

This is not to say that any crazy "expert" will be heard, then. The Daubert case lays out the standards for the trial judge to consider, and they include questions like whether the scientific theory has been tested, if it's been evaluated by publication in peer reviewed journals, and what the measured or theoretical error rate is.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Magiver

I disagree with Bricker that it meets the Frye standard....

Um...

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't think it meets the Frye standard, which is required in Florida.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Um...

Sorry, the first mentioned, Federal Standard in regards to Owen. But I don't know his full background other than he's in the forensic business. I suspect, and you can expound on it, that his credentials as related to the software would be called into question.

[treis]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...9#.T5FSvKVSQ06

Or go directly to the picture here:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_g...0419_wmain.jpg

The text say that this picture was taken the night of the shooting by one of the neighbors at the scene.

At least we can put the Zimmerman wasn't injured argument behind.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Sorry, the first mentioned, Federal Standard in regards to Owen. But I don't know his full background other than he's in the forensic business. I suspect, and you can expound on it, that his credentials as related to the software would be called into question.

Well, I admit I'm not looking at a voir dire transcript of the man or anything, but one of the strongest facts that can be brought out in a voir dire qualification of a witness is the number of times other courts have found the witness qualified as an expert:

Thomas J. Owen also serves as the Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society's Standards Group SC-03-WG-12 on Forensic Audio. Mr. Owen is also the Chairman Emeritus of The American Board of Recorded Evidence.
Mr. Owen Worked at New York City's Lincoln Center Archives for eleven years as Chief Engineer. He has appeared on network television and on radio discussing audio and video matters. Mr. Owen Lectures extensively in the United States and has numerous publications in the Forensic Examiner.
Mr. Owen's qualifications as an expert witness have been demonstrated in more than thirty-five states for both prosecution and defense.

[Magiver]

Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society's Standards Group SC-03-WG-12 on Forensic Audio sounds impressive enough. Just thinking aside, New York City's Lincoln Center Archives? sounds like he testifies in music recording cases. Can you sift out the kind of cases he testifies in for curiosity sake. I'd bet a whole quarter he as a few copyright infringement cases to his name. Maybe 50 cents.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Heart of Dorkness

A question about the article linked above:

[Emphasis mine]

That's just an incorrect word choice by the writer, right? If Martin was found lying face down (prostrate), that would presumably mean the gunpowder burns were on his back. That's not at all correct, is it?

PD reports say he was face down.

idk about the rest. idk if his jacket had a zipper and could be open showing the front while he was laying face down or not.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society's Standards Group SC-03-WG-12 on Forensic Audio sounds impressive enough. Just thinking aside, New York City's Lincoln Center Archives? sounds like he testifies in music recording cases. Can you sift out the kind of cases he testifies in for curiosity sake. I'd bet a whole quarter he as a few copyright infringement cases to his name. Maybe 50 cents.

Maybe -- but remember that copyright infringement is solely a federal issue, and Owen's list of courts that have certified him as an expert is much longer:

New York Southern District, New York Eastern District, New York, Buffalo, and New York State Court. Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Hartford, CT; Bridgeport, CT; New York Rockland County; Raleigh, NC; Newark, NJ; Mays Landing, NJ; Tottawa, NJ; Nashville, TN; Savannah, GA; Carmel, NY; Dover, DE; Tulsa, OK; Louisville, KY; Los Angeles, CA; Bowling Green, KY; Alexandria, VA; Zenia, OH; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO; NY Bronx Superior Court, Manhattan Supreme Court; NYPD Arbitration Hearing Board; Morganville, West Virginia; Fresno, CA; Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; Washington DC; Maryland; Florida; Idaho, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hartford, CT, Evanston, IL, Somerville, NJ, Brooklyn, NY, Miami, FL and others.

Southern and Eastern Districts in New York are federal. But he's got a laundry list of others, so I suspect he's done more than music copyright.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Maybe -- but remember that copyright infringement is solely a federal issue, and Owen's list of courts that have certified him as an expert is much longer:



Southern and Eastern Districts in New York are federal. But he's got a laundry list of others, so I suspect he's done more than music copyright.

I'm just curious if you can sift through cases with his name attached to see what kind of stuff he testifies to. I'm not trying to pigeon hole him to music but it sounded like that was on the list.

I wish I could listen to the whole thing but I'm not going to be able to. Quite fascinating.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by you with the face

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-mar...ry?id=16011674

Serino makes no claims in this article.
I am disappointed.
: (
I was already aware of reports about the filing of an affidavit. I thought you had seen something where Serino made a claim. I have seen the claims that Serino claimed, but not Serino's claim.

Originally Posted by you with the face

The statements from the SA's office that I've been talking appear to be an attempt to deflect blame from the prosecution regarding Zimmerman's non-arrest before the case was transferred to the state. I haven't seen any statements from the SA's office about insufficient probable cause after the PD completed their investigation.

From what Corey has said, the case was transferred before Sanford was totally done with it. Idk exactly what was left for Sanford to do. Nor do I know when it was transferred. But Corey's comments indicated that her team took over toward the end, but before it was wrapped up. (w/e that may mean)

Originally Posted by you with the face

I'm not talking about the SPD, though. I'm talking about the state attorney. I'm questioning why they chose to deviate from the "insufficent evidence" message offered by the PD, when that would have been the most logical path to take if it were true.

It may be because the PD statements are in re why Zimmerman wasn't arrested in February and the SA statements are about the results of things that were ongoing as March rolled around.
It's possible that the investigation turned up evidence which was not available "at the time" that Wolfinger's office declined to press charges on February 26th/27th.

That would explain the difference. And it doesn't sound outlandish that they may have found out new things as the investigation progressed.

:shrug:

[Magiver]

I was about to ask if they usually try the case in a bond hearing when the prosecutor asked the same question. So question answered. They're basically doing a mini version of the trial.

[Magiver]

I'm surprised his attorney allowed the prosecutor to repeatedly make the claim that Zimmerman committed a crime. Isn't that the purpose of the trial?

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Magiver

I'm surprised his attorney allowed the prosecutor to repeatedly make the claim that Zimmerman committed a crime. Isn't that the purpose of the trial?

Isn't that the standard default position of the prosecution?
Isn't that par for the course?

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by PatriotX

Serino makes no claims in this article.
I am disappointed.

I posted upfront that this "claim" could be untrue or exaggeration, so regardless if Serino did or didn't officially make any claims, my point was that we shouldn't treat the "overruled" thing as fact. (Please lets not kill this thread with pedantic nitpicks. Please.)

From what Corey has said, the case was transferred before Sanford was totally done with it. Idk exactly what was left for Sanford to do. Nor do I know when it was transferred. But Corey's comments indicated that her team took over toward the end, but before it was wrapped up. (w/e that may mean)

My question still stands though. Rather than throwing the PD under the bus by implying that the cops could have arrested Zimmerman on day 1 if they'd wanted to, the SA's office could have just said there wasn't enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman at the point that they were first consulted about the shooting.

The context in which the statement was made concerned the night of the shooting and rumors that Wolfinger was initimately involved in how the case was treated early on.

It may be because the PD statements are in re why Zimmerman wasn't arrested in February and the SA statements are about the results of things that were ongoing as March rolled around.

So why did the SA talk about the police's actions? Again, look at the context in which the statement was made.

That would explain the difference. And it doesn't sound outlandish that they may have found out new things as the investigation progressed.

It doesn't sound outlandish to me either.

[Bricker]

Zimmerman got bond: $150K and electronic monitoring. State had asked for no bond or $1 million.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by you with the face

I posted upfront that this "claim" could be untrue or exaggeration, so regardless if Serino did or didn't officially make any claims, my point was that we shouldn't treat the "overruled" thing as fact. (Please lets not kill this thread with pedantic nitpicks. Please.)

Not trying tonitpick. You got me all excited thinking that there was some statement by Serino.

Some folks in other places are trying to make the case that the affidavit doesn't exist.
You said something about Serino making a claim.
I got excited by the prospect.
Now I am disappointed.
That's about all there is to it afaict.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by PatriotX

Not trying tonitpick. You got me all excited thinking that there was some statement by Serino.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

[Rand Rover]

So, um, no reaction to the head injury photo from team trayvon? After pages and pages about how he didn't look injured in the police video?

[Jack Batty]

Yeah, that's quite a life threatening gusher he's got trickling down the nape of his neck. Good thing he blew a hole into Martin's chest before he could put another nick on him.

Happy?

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Silly legal hijack:

Per Jason Daubert, his last name is pronounced Daw-bert. All of those fancy pants judges and lawyers trying to make it sound French can suck it!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So, um, no reaction to the head injury photo from team trayvon? After pages and pages about how he didn't look injured in the police video?

I see a few reactions to it in this thread. So yes, there are reactions.

Honestly it doesn't look like all that much blood for a head wound. I'd think that repeated bashing against concrete would produce much worse, but I'm not a medical expert so someone may correct me.

On another note, you refer to "Team Trayvon". Do you then consider yourself to be on "Team Zimmerman"? Personally I think sports analogies are disgusting in this context. Nobody here is on a team regarding this. This is serious stuff, not sports.

[JoelUpchurch]

I found the examination of Dale Gilbreath quite interesting. I'm bummed that my recording didn't work. I think O'Mara did a good job.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

Silly legal hijack:

Per Jason Daubert, his last name is pronounced Daw-bert. All of those fancy pants judges and lawyers trying to make it sound French can suck it!

Wow.

I never knew that.

OK, here's one: pronounce the second word in nolo contendere. Is it con-TEN-dare-ee or con-ten-DARE-ee?

[BottledBlondJeanie]

First one I think, of course I still vor dire (pronounced like the latter half of Dire Straits) my panel.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So, um, no reaction to the head injury photo from team trayvon? After pages and pages about how he didn't look injured in the police video?

What are we supposed to make of a photo taken by some random person? Shouldn't be making judgements only on official state evidence?

That pic, if taken at face value, only heightens the mystery surrounding the absence of bandages on this guy's head on that surveillance video.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Actually, I was wondering, do some EMTs use cyanoacrylate to glue simple wounds? I don't know if that's in their bag of tricks or not. I can't recall seeing it in the EMT reports I've read but those are mostly Texas.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

First one I think, of course I still vor dire (pronounced like the latter half of Dire Straits) my panel.

I learned it as con-ten-DARE-ee, but I've heard both, and had to stop myself from correcting the speaker the first time I heard it the other way. (The speaker was a judge, so correcting him... not so smart).

And you're right: vo-AR DEER is another one that has multiple options!

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

What are we supposed to make of a photo taken by some random person? Shouldn't be making judgements only on official state evidence?

That pic, if taken at face value, only heightens the mystery surrounding the absence of bandages on this guy's head on that surveillance video.

Yes.

But more than that, you should be consistent, and not switch to "official evidence" standards only when confronted with evidence not to your liking.

I haven't mentioned that photo; I have no idea what its provenance is, when it was taken, or whose head is pictured.

But as evidence, it's at least as strong as other thing you have argued strongly in favor of.

I am waiting for the EMT report, myself.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Zimmerman got bond: $150K and electronic monitoring. State had asked for no bond or $1 million.

The other interesting factoid out of this hearing is that while apologizing to Martin's parents, Zimmerman said he didn't know Martin was not armed, according to this Washington Post story. I recall him saying something on the 911 call about Martin reaching for something on his belt or at his waist, which I suppose is a suggestion he was concerned about the possibility of a gun. But none of his proxies that have given versions of his stories have said anything about him believing Martin was armed. Almost the opposite. There was at least one claim that Martin was going for Zimmerman's gun, and why would he do that if he had one. Why would he even engage in an assault on Zimmerman if he was armed (assuming he did so)?

Stranger and stranger...

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

The other interesting factoid out of this hearing is that while apologizing to Martin's parents, Zimmerman said he didn't know Martin was not armed, according to this Washington Post story. I recall him saying something on the 911 call about Martin reaching for something on his belt or at his waist, which I suppose is a suggestion he was concerned about the possibility of a gun. But none of his proxies that have given versions of his stories have said anything about him believing Martin was armed. Almost the opposite. There was at least one claim that Martin was going for Zimmerman's gun, and why would he do that if he had one. Why would he even engage in an assault on Zimmerman if he was armed (assuming he did so)?

Stranger and stranger...

What I find strange is that Zimmerman is testifying at the hearing and talking to everybody. This guy desperately needs a good lawyer who will put a muzzle on him.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

Actually, I was wondering, do some EMTs use cyanoacrylate to glue simple wounds? I don't know if that's in their bag of tricks or not. I can't recall seeing it in the EMT reports I've read but those are mostly Texas.

Even if they did use glue (which is doubtful if we take Zimmerman's former lawyer at his word when he said he'd needed stitches but didn't get them because it too was late or something), even closed wounds should be dressed to promote healing.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes.

But more than that, you should be consistent, and not switch to "official evidence" standards only when confronted with evidence not to your liking.

I haven't mentioned that photo; I have no idea what its provenance is, when it was taken, or whose head is pictured.

But as evidence, it's at least as strong as other thing you have argued strongly in favor of.

I am waiting for the EMT report, myself.

Exactly. It's rather telling when people will believe anything that supports Team Trayvon, demand official evidence foritems that don't support Team Trayvon, and think that such items only really further support Team Trayvon if you just look at them right.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

Actually, I was wondering, do some EMTs use cyanoacrylate to glue simple wounds? I don't know if that's in their bag of tricks or not. I can't recall seeing it in the EMT reports I've read but those are mostly Texas.

I use New Skin myself. It is very handy for places a bandaid won't work.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Skin-Liqui.../dp/B0017JOF86

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

So, um, no reaction to the head injury photo from team trayvon? After pages and pages about how he didn't look injured in the police video?

As I mentioned elsewhere, that always seemed like an odd thing to hang one's hat on as proof of Zimmerman's guilt. I can't believe the police would put it in their report if it wasn't there, and the notion that the police would accept Zimmerman's word for it that he was bleeding when they could tell at a glance that he wasn't is bizarre.

It's like the attorneys arguing that they could hear multiple shots fired. There weren't; only one shot was fired and that can be proven pretty clearly. Saying otherwise just makes you look stupid. And then why should anyone listen when you claim you can recognize your son's voice on the same tape?

Regards,
Shodan

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Exactly. It's rather telling when people will believe anything that supports Team Trayvon, demand official evidence foritems that don't support Team Trayvon, and think that such items only really further support Team Trayvon if you just look at them right.

I didn't reject anything. I just asked you a pointed question about it's worth as evidence.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Even if they did use glue (which is doubtful if we take Zimmerman's former lawyer at his word when he said he'd needed stitches but didn't get them because it too was late or something), even closed wounds should be dressed to promote healing.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and I do see the recommendations for further dressing with most wounds, but the rationale for it goes more towards the other type of wound closures.

If that picture is accurate, I think using "glue" would be prudent just to stop the bleeding. I'm not sure if, given those circumstances, dressing is required. But, I'm just speculating that if that is an accurate picture why there was no bandaging/dressing in the police video.

[davidm]

I think both Rand Rover and Shodan are attacking a straw man. The question, at least in my mind, wasn't whether there were any injuries at all. The question was the extent of the injuries. The question is, do they or do they not coincide with the claims of repeated bashing against concrete.

Ultimately, the answer probably lies in the EMT report, but the unofficial photos and videos don't seem to support the idea of serious life threatening injury.

And can we stop with the juvenile "Team Trayvon" crap? It adds nothing to the conversation and borders on ad hominem.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by davidm

I think both Rand Rover and Shodan are attacking a straw man. The question, at least in my mind, wasn't whether there were any injuries at all. The question was the extent of the injuries. The question is, do they or do they not coincide with the claims of repeated bashing against concrete.

Ultimately, the answer probably lies in the EMT report, but the unofficial photos and videos don't seem to support the idea of serious life threatening injury.

No one ever claimed that Zimmerman received a serious life threatening injury. The law does not require you to receive a serious life threatening injury in order to use deadly force in self-defense.

And go try bashing the back of your head on grass. Hit it sufficiently hard and you may receive a concussion. But you won't get lacerations.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

Yeah, that's quite a life threatening gusher he's got trickling down the nape of his neck. Good thing he blew a hole into Martin's chest before he could put another nick on him.

Happy?

Are you suggesting Zimmerman should have waited until he had life threatening injuries before defending himself?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

What I find strange is that Zimmerman is testifying at the hearing and talking to everybody. This guy desperately needs a good lawyer who will put a muzzle on him.

From what I've seen of the new guy, he seems very sharp, not that I'm an expert. And Zimmerman seems to have a habit of doing things against the advice of his lawyers, if his ex-lawyers can be believed. They can't put a muzzle on him, they can only suggest he wear one voluntarily.

[Terr]

By the way, I think the defense lawyer during the hearing claimed to have medical records documenting Zimmerman's broken nose, as well.

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Terr

No one ever claimed that Zimmerman received a serious life threatening injury. The law does not require you to receive a serious life threatening injury in order to use deadly force in self-defense.

And go try bashing the back of your head on grass. Hit it sufficiently hard and you may receive a concussion. But you won't get lacerations.

What if there is a tiny pebble in the grass or a small stick poking up. Still say its impossible to get a scratch? Anyone speaking in absolutes on these topics is kind of showing their bias imho. To be so certain of things like this is folly at this stage of the process.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Terr

No one ever claimed that Zimmerman received a serious life threatening injury. The law does not require you to receive a serious life threatening injury in order to use deadly force in self-defense.

And go try bashing the back of your head on grass. Hit it sufficiently hard and you may receive a concussion. But you won't get lacerations.

Okay. I was guilty of using some hyperbole when I said "life threatening". I admit that and apologize. What I should have said was that it doesn't appear to be consistent with repeated bashing against concrete (or is the story now that it was grass? I can't keep up.)