Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

I have talked about the injuries and how they are not consistent with his account–combined with the lack of physical evidence on Martin.

He had injuries consistent with being hit in the face and against the ground, specifically a broken nose, and cuts and bruising to both the front and back of the head.

I’m not sure what you’d expect to find on Martin, if you’re talking about DNA evidence it’s not clear how Zimmerman’s DNA would be on him. There’s no fingernail scratches on Zimmerman, so you wouldn’t expect DNA under the fingernails, and blood doesn’t flow upwards, so there wouldn’t be much on him.

I have talked about how it really isn’t likely Martin traveled the distance (circling the truck, etc) Zimmerman said he did.

“Isn’t likely” isn’t enough. This has been done before…

You said something very important here, and I hope you will take the time to read what I say and not get angry or respond with an insult.

Here it is: “Any one piece of evidence that provides reasonable doubt** can **exonerate him.”

Can?..maybe. Will? maybe not.

A jury will look at the totality of evidence–maybe one part might not make sense, but if they get a picture from everything else, that ONE piece might not matter.

Also, as I said before, the prosecution may not have to prove every little iota…just as long as they present a solid argument to the jury–THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE PERFECT.

A solid argument that the defence cannot cast reasonable doubt upon.

If the prosecution provide a believable account of the events, consistent with evidence, but the defence can show even one think that casts reasonable doubt on the state’s claim, the jury must acquit. Not “may”, not “can”, “must”.

You may remember that language from the OJ Simpson trial. It got a lot of complaints at the time, but it was used correctly.

I will reiterate, please don’t get too caught up with the second-degree murder charge. There might be a plea, remember. This is very common here in the US.

It would be illegal for them to charge him with murder solely in the hope that he’d plead guilty to a lesser crime. I don’t see prosecutorial misconduct as something to let slide.

But then again, there might be other evidence that will SOLIDIFY a second degree charge.

There might. As I’ve repeatedly asked, if there’s other evidence I’ve not seen, or not given due weight, show me it. On the other hand, you need to judge solely on the evidence available, not on your speculations about what might become available.

You imply by using the word “solidify” that you don’t think the murder case is solid. Why, then, are you so convinced he’s guilty?

Please keep an open mind.

It is. I changed my mind after seeing the evidence before, and if more evidence appears I may well change it back. One thing my mind is not open to, and will not be, is the idea of claiming someone is a murderer without conclusive evidence.

[Magiver]

@betenoire39

This is all starting to make sense…

Zimmerman’s early media blitz was part of his legal defense–even though it might not have looked like it.

It’s the 4th element that he’s really concerned with–the ill-will part.

That’s why they had that fool Joe Oliver on to try to “prove” Zimmerman wasn’t racist. That’s why certain media outlets tried to stress his “mentoring” of black kids and him standing up for a black police brutality victim.

That’s why early on they focused on the screaming and trying to disprove it being Martin’s voice–if Martin was the one screaming (which I believe he was), then that would almost certainly establish the 4th element.

This Zimmerman is more cunning than I thought he was–all of this shit was calculated from the get-go.

After all–if you believe that mentoring bullshit and Oliver and the screaming nonsense. how could you establish that 4th element?

What the prosecution has to do is definitively establish the screaming was Martin’s–especially the “I’m begging you” part (heart wrenching). That should nail him.

So it all makes sense to you now that you know it was all calculated from the get-go. It’s all a plot. Zimmerman could have just shot Martin and walked away but instead he called the police and concocted an intricate web of lies hoping his brilliance carried him through.

Well meanwhile, Those of us looking at the evidence would like to know how Martin came to be in the middle of the T after running from that area to get away from the as yet unknown shooting that was about to take place.

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

After all–if you believe that mentoring bullshit and Oliver and the screaming nonsense. how could you establish that 4th element?

What’s “bullshit” about the mentoring? Do you have evidence it didn’t happen?

What the prosecution has to do is definitively establish the screaming was Martin’s–especially the “I’m begging you” part (heart wrenching). That should nail him.

It would do. Given that Zimmerman’s parents have identified the screamer as their son, and there are different voice recognition experts claiming it’s both of them, how do you suggest the prosecution could do that?

[Magiver]

@Steophan

What’s “bullshit” about the mentoring? Do you have evidence it didn’t happen?

well obviously it was part of the original plot. It was years in the making.

[betenoire39]

@Magiver

So it all makes sense to you now that you know it was all calculated from the get-go. It’s all a plot. Zimmerman could have just shot Martin and walked away but instead he called the police and concocted an intricate web of lies hoping his brilliance carried him through.

Well meanwhile, Those of us looking at the evidence would like to know how Martin came to be in the middle of the T after running from that area to get away from the as yet unknown shooting that was about to take place.

Dude, I have never witnessed a person accused of murder go out on a media blitz like this. NEVER.
Yes, I believe this.

I gave you an explanation of why Martin was there: that’s where he was hiding from Zimmerman.

[betenoire39]

@Steophan

1. What’s “bullshit” about the mentoring? Do you have evidence it didn’t happen?

2. It would do. Given that Zimmerman’s parents have identified the screamer as their son, and there are different voice recognition experts claiming it’s both of them, how do you suggest the prosecution could do that?

1. Bullshit in terms of it being brought up. That’s not persuading me.

2. By bringing in the most qualified respected person they can find to testify it was Martin. It sounded like Martin to me, especially the “I’m begging you” part.

I am also hoping maybe some audio experts picked up background noises/voices in the emergency calls–if let’s say they were able to isolate Zimmerman’s voice while there was screaming (that is–it wasn’t him screaming) or something else.

I pray they will.

[Magiver]

@betenoire39

Dude, I have never witnessed a person accused of murder go out on a media blitz like this. NEVER.
Yes, I believe this.

Dude, you missed the OJ Simpson trial.

@betenoire39

I gave you an explanation of why Martin was there: that’s where he was hiding from Zimmerman.

He was hiding in plain sight at the intersection of the T?

[Bricker]

@betenoire39

What the prosecution has to do is definitively establish the screaming was Martin’s–especially the “I’m begging you” part (heart wrenching). That should nail him.

The prosecution cannot do that.

The reason is that “I’m begging you,” is not audible on the tape to an ordinary listener, but was the conclusion of an expert hired to review the tape, who manipulated the sounds to produce an “enhanced” version. This enhanced version will not be admissible at trial.

However, if the prosecution had some other evidence that did clearly establish Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was saying “I’m begging you,” then that would indeed support second-degree murder.

[betenoire39]

@Magiver

Dude, you missed the OJ Simpson trial.

** He was hiding in plain sight at the intersection of the T**?

He was hiding behind the bushes somewhere near the T.

I believe this, yes.

IMO, Zimmerman probably missed him at first–he probably spotted him when he was on his way back to his truck (but not immediately, though. Again, Zimmmerman didn’t immediately go back to his truck–he was still looking for Martin).

I could be wrong, but this makes the most sense and corresponds nicely to BOTH Zimmerman’s and DeeDee’s accounts as well as physics (as Serino said).

I don’t believe Martin really left that general area from the get go. No, Martin is not Usain Bolt.

[Redbrow]

@Magiver

too dark unless he has a state of the art phone camera and even then I doubt it.

But during the interrogation Serino told George that Martin did video the whole thing, just like “he even concludes that Martin couldn’t have run home in the time allotted–he must have been hiding.”

Or maybe it was part of Serino’s interrogation technique and he was just throwing BS out there to see how George would react, or if he would change his story.

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

2. By bringing in the most qualified respected person they can find to testify it was Martin. It sounded like Martin to me, especially the “I’m begging you” part.

How do you know what Martin’s voice sounds like?

I pray they will.

Shouldn’t you be praying that the truth will come out, not just what would make you happier? If indeed you’re serious about praying, do you think it’s a good Christian thing to do to attempt to send Zimmerman to prison in spite of the lack of conclusive evidence?

[Redbrow]

If there is audio of Martin available, I’d sure like to hear it, and so would his mother.

And now he is gone from his mother forever, only able to stare out at her as a shining face on a cellphone. She has no home videos of Trayvon. She doesn’t even have voicemail messages from him saved. The only way that she could now hear Trayvon’s voice would be to call his phone and listen to his answering message, but she dare not do it. “If I hear his voice, I think I’m going to scream.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/blow-a-mothers-grace-and-grieving.html?_r=0

The only available recording of Martin’s voice I am aware of is on the discovery video from 7-11. His voice is deep/low-pitched (not unlike his father’s).

Trayvon Martin at 7-11 with audio (BNR applied)

Trayvon Martin at 7-11 with audio (BNR applied)

[Steophan]

It’s interesting you note that Martin had a deep voice. Zimmerman has a fairly high voice, which may have lead to a false belief that the witnesses heard a child screaming when in fact it was the man with the higher voice.

Not conclusive by any means, but some circumstantial evidence that supports Zimmerman’s story.

[dimmy_derko]

@Steophan

Well, we did this months ago, with the same Wiki quote…

It was overdue another mention then.

@Steophan

Yes, if it’s only evidence that is currently in the public domain.

BdlR and Angela Corey seem to think they can get a murder 2 on it.

@Steophan

Which part do you think needs “excusing”?

Just answer this question. Do you think he was telling the truth when he said Trayvon jumped him from out of those bushes at the side of the houses, and when he said he was hit on the nose and fell back, immediately?

I’ll let you pore over his own words for a moment, within hours of the incident and before he’d allowed his imagination and his “I don’t remember’s” to go into full flow..

Zimmerman: So, I was walking back through to where my car was and he jumped out from the bushes(1) and he said, What the fuck’s your problem, homie? And I got my cell phone out to call 911 this time.(2)
Singleton: Um hum.
Zimmerman: And I said, Hey man, I don’t have a problem. And he goes, No, now you have a problem. And he punched me in the nose. At that point I fell down, ah I tried to defend myself, he just started punching me in the face. And, ah, I started screaming for help, I couldn’t see, I couldn’t breathe. Then he started taking my head..
Singleton: Are you still standing at this point?
Zimmerman: No ma’am.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time.(3)
Singleton: OK.

(1) Did anyone see any bushes where Serino was stood when Z said “that’s about where he came from” in the reenactment vid?

(2) Did you take it out, Z? It should be on the floor then near the T where you got put on your back, shouldn’t it?

(3) Members of the jury, I respectfully suggest that Z is a lying fuck and that you do the right thing.

[dimmy_derko]

Just in case you feel there’s room for doubt about HOW he fell, here he is a line or 2 later.

Zimmerman: It was dark. I didn’t even see him getting ready to punch me. As soon as he punched me, I fell backwards, um, into the grass,

[dimmy_derko]

@Steophan

How do you know what Martin’s voice sounds like?

You think if someone said “I’m begging you!” it was more likely to be George, even though Georgy boy has never mentioned pleading with Trayvon?

[Bricker]

@dimmy_derko

You think if someone said “I’m begging you!” it was more likely to be George, even though Georgy boy has never mentioned pleading with Trayvon?

From an evidentiary point of view, no one said that.

[dimmy_derko]

@Bricker

From an evidentiary point of view, no one said that.

It’s been suggested it can be heard in one of the 911 calls. Could the prosecution not bring in an audio expert to testify that this indeed was said?

[Bricker]

@dimmy_derko

It’s been suggested it can be heard in one of the 911 calls. Could the prosecution not bring in an audio expert to testify that this indeed was said?

So far as I am aware, the only audio expert to reach this conclusion reached it using a new audio analytical tool that he developed (and is marketing, if I recall correctly).

In order to be admissible, scientific testimony must meet certain guidelines.

Back near the beginning of this thread, I posted the following:

@Bricker

The intersection of science and the law is interesting.

When DNA testing was in its infancy, there was a period when scientists knew they could reliably match biological samples to people to a vanishingly small error rate. And lawyers - defense lawyers, mostly - were arguing that the results should not be heard in court, because they were unreliable.

There are two different tests used in the United States judicial world to govern the admissibility of new scientific tests, methods, or techniques. In the federal system and many states, the Daubert test reigns. Based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), it’s a relatively lenient standard that grants the trial judge a fair degree of latitude in admitting evidence. Basically, if “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise…” in other words, the judge can permit an expert to testify about his theory, period.

There is a more restrictive standard, and Florida uses it: the Frye standard, based on Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). This standard requires:

[ol]
[li]The trial judge must determine whether the expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact at issue (same as Daubert)[/li][li]The trial judge must decide whether the expert’s testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”[/li][li]The trial judge must determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present opinion testimony on the subject at issue [/li][li]The judge may then allow the expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise, and then it is up to the jury to determine the credibility of the expert’s opinion, which it may either accept or reject.[/li][/ol]

From Ramirez v. State, 651 So. 2d 1164 (Fl. 1995).

So the key difference: Frye requires that the science to have reached a stage of general acceptance in its field — basically, that it not be novel or controversial. Daubert merely requires that an expert can be found and qualified to explain it.

Because Florida uses the Frye standard, and because (as I understand it) the “I’m begging you,” dialog is only audible when listening to a recording modified by a new technique, one which has not “gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs,” I don’t believe it’s admissible.

I welcome correction on my predicate assumptions.

[hmarvin]

2:41:98=no heavy breathing, wind noise disappears for remainder of call. 3 metallic taps.
2:45:92=3 taps, pause, 1 tap
2:59:35=1 tap, something being jostled
3:21:60=1 tap
3:42:20=1 last tap

Zimmerman claimed he stopped to tap his non functioning flashlight on something, the sounds of which are apparently captured on the dispatcher call. Hard to chase down someone standing in one place.