I don’t donate money to foolish people who do foolish things. Folks like this may not deserve prison, but they don’t deserve my hard-earned money either.
By the looks of it, Zimmerman has been using his defense fund to buy honey buns, KFC, and cheese doodles instead of paying his lawyers. I’m not sure why anyone should be shedding tears over this. If he wants to shortchange the two guys standing between him and a 2nd degree murder conviction, who are we to pity him?
I see. So, in your world, it’s justice for someone to go to prison because they’re fat.
But if they admit of more than one interpretation (which you appear to concede) then they do a poor job of establishing guilt “beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.” Indeed, they make a respectable case for a verdict of not guilty.
Only to someone who is ridiculously biased towards Zimmerman.
Based on the logic you’re espousing, even a confession would “do a poor job of establishing guilt” because there’s always a chance it could be false. But most people can plainly see that this would be incriminating evidence.
Here’s another inarguable fact. Multiple experts have listened to enhanced versions of the 911 tape and have either ruled in Martin as the source of the cry or ruled out Zimmerman. At least one has also identified additional language on the NEN call that incriminates Zimmerman. To date, the defense has been unsuccessful in getting this evidence excluded from the trial. Since the experts’ methods appear to be widely practiced, there is little grounds for a Frye hearing. And based on their most recent press releases, the defense apparently can’t pay someone enough money to identify Zimmerman as the voice.
Here are some inarguable facts:
*Martin’s father said it was not his son screaming on the tape.
FBI experts listened to the tape and concluded that it was not possible to determine from the tape alone who was screaming.
Your statement that an expert heard Zimmerman say something incriminating is false.*
Regards,
Shodan
If you want to play that game, Zimmerman himself said the voice didn’t sound like him. Now ain’t that something? Since Zimmerman was an actual witness to the screaming, whose opinion matters most? Martin’s dad (who didn’t even say what you’re claiming, btw) wasn’t even there.
FBI said they couldn’t discern whether he called Martin a “coon” or a “punk”. Their analysis of the tape stopped and ended there, because they were only investigating a hate crime motive. The other experts who have weighed in on the tapes were not limited in the same way and barring any miracles, they will be presenting their results to the jury.
It seems like the truth is hurting your feelings and causing you be in denial. The expert says on the enhanced tape, he can hear Zimmerman say “These [expletive], they always get away, but not on me.”. In other words, he explicitedly expressed the intent to prevent Martin from escaping. It incriminates him as the aggressor of the conflict.
But keep your head in the sand if you want.
From the transcript I just posted:
Not only did Zimmerman say the voice didn’t sound like him, he outright denied it was him. Probably because he realized it didn’t add up with his suffocation claim.
In reading about this case on another board, I came across an apt description of Zimmerman’s reasoning ability. He is not a systems thinker. This is why his lies are so messy and he will likely fall a part if he takes the stand. When he lies, he fails to appreciate the importance of making sure each lie is consistent with the rest of his story. He can only deal with one lie at a time.
I am afraid I don’t see your point. The police investigator said, specifically, that the voice was Zimmerman’s.
They identified Zimmerman as the voice on the tape. So it wasn’t Martin, it was Zimmerman.
Serino also says, specifically, that Martin was not on the tape -
So, as often happens, you have supplied evidence that tends to disprove your “unarguable facts”.
Once again, your own cite demonstrates that you are being other than truthful -
Regards,
Shodan
Per the New York Times, this is not the case:
Harnsberger and Hollien were unable to match the cries with either Martin or Zimmerman.
Reich concludes that it was Martin, and claims to have found all sorts of extra words in the recording, including this rather odd bit:
Judge Nelson will rule on Reich’s evidence on June 6th.
A Florida jury decides a second-degree murder case.
Man shoots wife’s lover after finding them having sex in the couple’s living room. He’s acquitted.
Notice that the FBI never says the poor quality of the tape precluded them from concluding anything about the source of the yelling. The state has left this analysis up to other experts, which is perfectly legitimate.
Which means they add nor take away anything from the state’s case.
It might be odd, but if it’s on the tape it’s on the tape. Perhaps he will play back the enhanced audio to the jury so they can hear for themselves what is there.
Legitimate, yes, but you were plainly wrong that the FBI didn’t attempt to identify the source of the yelling.
Again, from NYT:
Sure makes it sound like both factors were related to the FBI’s inconclusive result, unless you have a source that says the audio was too poor to make out a word, but not too poor to identify the source of yelling.
They can be called to testify about their inconclusive result which, if Reich’s evidence is admitted, casts doubt on Reich’s absolute certainty.
Perhaps. Have to see if it’s admitted, first.
I buried Paul.
That’s what you take from an article where he admits his mistake, and regrets it? Your bias is disturbing, to put it mildly.
Yeah, monstro, give O’Mara a break. He was merely in the middle of his concerted effort to blame the victim by painting him as unrepentant street thug who likes to watch his friends beat up bums. Honest mistake. Could have happened to anyone.
Beside, what’s important now is that despite what was actually in the video, “Trayvon videoed his friend’s beating up a homeless person” is now in the Zimmerman apologist quiver, and true or not, I guarantee it will be floated again as proof of Martin’s guilt (though he’s not even on trial) which will be rebutted to deaf ears. At the very least, I’d like to call right now the, “How is that any better? Why didn’t he stop the fight instead of filming it” apologia.
So why don’t we get back on board with the Benjamin Crump is a disgusting opportunist bandwagon where all right-thinking Americans belong.
AFAIK Trayvon Martin did not video his friends beating any homeless people.
In other words, it is not going to be like “Zimmerman did not have a broken nose”, where clear evidence is ignored and false statements are repeated.
Regards,
Shodan
So basically the whole purpose of O’Mara’s mea culpa is to inform the public (e.g. the jury) that Trayvon isn’t still beating his wife. monstro called it correctly.
Zimmerman was the victim of a vicious attack, and you and others (including Monstro and ywtf have spent months blaming him for it. Quit your hypocrisy, Martin wasn’t a victim of anything other that his own violent actions.
As you rightly say, Martin’s not on trial, so proof of his guilt isn’t needed. The possibility of it is all that’s required.
You mean the guy who’s coached witnesses to lie and hasn’t admitted it yet? FAir enough, let’s do it.