It was pretty obvious it was Zimmerman all along - it may even help the prosecution not to argue so ridiculous a claim. It’s like some of the sillier claims made, about how Zimmerman didn’t have any injuries to the back of his head, or a broken nose.
If the prosecution says things like that with a straight face, how can they expect to be believed when they start making claims about Zimmerman’s state of mind, or other factors that aren’t obvious?
I don’t think this voice testimony was a linchpin of the prosecution’s case. It was too easy to refute. Just get the witnesses who say they hear Zimmerman screaming for help and losing the fight, and then top it off by subpoena-ing Martin Sr. and ask him if it is true that he originally denied that the screams were his son.
Although watching the defense rubbing the “experts” noses in the FBI analysis might have been entertaining.
I would like an explanation of the fhe fact that everyone who’s walked from the 7-11 to the front gate of the development in around ten minutes, but George Zimmerman phoned in that he saw Trayvon Martin forty minutes later wandering around. DD’s account doesn’t add up.
It would have been entertaining to see the “expert” try to explain how looping the same thing through the software counts as additional voice recognition time. He needed 16 seconds by his own account, he claimed he isolated 7 seconds.
It’s relevant to the question of whether Zimmerman was reasonable in considering Martin’s behaviour suspicious. In my opinion, it is reasonable to consider an unknown person walking aimlessly in a private place suspicious, not that it’s relevant to the case but some people are making a big deal of it.
Exactly what is relevant? IIUC Zimmerman was at home during the majority of that forty minutes and would have had absolutely no knowledge of what Martin was doing during that time. It doesn’t matter how long the walk took or exactly what Martin was doing during that time if Zimmerman doesn’t have knowledge of it.
Some people are making a big deal of it because they’re trying to to find any prior bad act to justify their opinion of Martin.
If Martin wasn’t walking home, he was doing something else. Zimmerman claims he was walking slowly looking in houses, and this is evidence consistent with that. Nothing more than that.
My opinion of Martin, or that of anyone else, is irrelevant. What matters are his actions, and more precisely, whether those actions could reasonably be considered to have put Zimmerman in enough fear that he was allowed to shoot him. What he was doing prior to the fight is only relevant when compared to Zimmerman’s story, it has no bearing on the legality of the killing.
I maintain that it was reasonable to consider this behaviour suspicious, and to call the police about it. That doesn’t mean I know Martin was a burglar, or anything else about him - and for that matter, it wouldn’t affect this case if he was.
The discussion goes back to the misinformation that Martin was just walking home from the 7-eleven which comes from Dee Dee’s testimony. Clearly he was not. When you add in it was raining and he did not walk straight home it adds to the narrative that he was seen standing in someone’s yard looking around at the houses. Under cross examination Dee Dee will be asked about this gap in time. There are a lot of questions she can be asked regarding what happened that night as well as any text messages entered into court.
But hey, what does Zimmerman know about exactly what he claimed to have observed, right?
Just me, but if I saw someone standing in someone’s yard looking around at the houses as opposed to taking a known short-cut through someone’s yard and walking around, looking about, I’d probably mention to the police when I called them, but that’s just me.
If people are faulting Martin for not making a bee line home and speculating that this means he was up to no good, I wonder why they don’t extend the same finger wagging to Zimmerman. He was supposedly heading to Target. Instead of going on ahead and doing that after phoning in Martin, he took his truck down a whole nother street and went into patrol-mode with a loaded weapon.
And instead of heading straight back to his truck after getting off the phone with dispatch, he didn’t. He spent 2 minutes doing something else.
And yet somehow Martin is the bad guy because he was enjoying his phone conversation and wasn’t in a hurry to get home.
If someone had called the police having seen Zimmerman’s behaviour - someone including Martin - there would be no complaints. Indeed, I and others have suggested that, if Martin felt that Zimmerman was (non-imminently) threatening him, that’s what he should have done. As opposed to what he in fact did, which does appear to have made him a bad guy.
No-one considers Martin the bad guy because he was walking slowly. Acting in a way that could be considered suspicious doesn’t make someone a bad guy.
Are “suspicious” and “wrong” more words you can’t distinguish between? Along with “proof” and “evidence”, and for that matter “illegal” and “stuff you disapprove of”?
Excellent question. I initially thought that Zimmerman would be found guilty, but after the jury selection and the exclusion of audio analysis of the screams, it seems the case has been self-engineered to give Zimmerman every possible advantage. It’s sad to admit: I think he’ll walk no questions asked. For example, in a similar thread, a poster correctly found the probability of 6 female jururs on the Zimmerman case to be <2%. To that in perspective, it would be if in 2012 Election was captured by Roseanne Barr who mysteriously beat out Obama and Romney. I hate to say it but who are we kidding here? The trial itself is showcasing in stark technicolor that even in death African-Americans can’t get equal justice in this country.
The exclusion of the audio and audio analysis is dumb, but alas, not at all surprising. Let the jurors hear the audio, teach them how sound works, lead them to your analysis of why you think it was Trayvon, Zimmerman, or indecipherable. Let the jurors come up with their own conclusions. By selectively removing evidence, the Court is treating the jury like slow-witted children who cannot understand what’s being told to them. Because of this and the aforementioned reasons, Zimmerman will walk, however, I don’t think he’ll pull out of the spotlight. Why would he? Zimmerman has admitted this is indeed all “God’s plan” and his acquittal would fit superbly into that (magical) narrative. I foresee Zimmerman running the circuit of interviews, writing books, and generally bilking his new found freedom for as much fame and fortune as he can.
He’s the defendant, that’s the way it’s supposed to work. That it doesn’t always work that way is not good, but it’s no reason to have a problem with things working correctly here.
No, it means there’s a one in fifty chance of it happening, and, as this is a single event, statistics aren’t overly relevant. If all Florida cases have a similar jury distribution, you might have a point, but as it stands you don’t.
Nonsense. Firstly this case has nothing to do with race, and secondly the fact that there’s even a trial with such little evidence against the defendant shows that the justice system is going all out to get “justice” for Martin, even to the point of ignoring procedures such as the Grand Jury.
What you want is exactly what’s happened. The actual experts, those who have proven they know their stuff, will be allowed to present their findings. Those who ignored their own claimed best practices, have something to sell, and failed to show that what they had was reliable, have been banned.
If you want justice, you would applaud this.
No, he’ll walk because there’s no evidence he committed any crime. Frankly, after having a year and a half of his life stolen from him, and his chance of making a living without doing that taken from him as well, I hope he can make some money from it.
It would be hard enough to deal with having to kill someone when the law was on your side, without also having to deal with (at minimum) unethical prosecutors trying to ruin your life.
This is not true. Statistics can tell you what is the probability of there being 6 female jurors on the jury. 50% for the first female juror, 25% for the second female juror, 12.5% for the third female juror, 6.25% for the fourth female juror, 3.125% for the fifth female juror, and finally, 1.56% for the sixth female juror. In other words, by random chance, there would be a 1.56% chance that six female jurors would be selected. My analogy with Roseanne Barr still stands. The probability of the current jury composition (<2%) is analogous to Roseanne Barr beating out Obama and Romney in the 2012 Presidential Election.
That means that it will happen 2% of the time, you understand. Say I’m a 2% three-point shooter, and I make one. Does that mean I’m suddenly a great shooter, or was this just that 50th time?
You clearly don’t understand statistics, or for that matter the variables involved in jury selection. Assuming an even distribution of men and women accepted as jurors (which is a massive assumption in itself), there’s a one in 66 chance of an all female jury. How many trials are there daily in Florida? I’d guess more than 66, so you’d expect at least one all-female jury a day there.
This is all ignoring the fact that applying probabilistic analysis to one-off events, such as a specific trial with an extremely restricted jury pool, is borderline meaningless.
It’s also clear from your posts here and in the other thread that you want a biased jury - you stated in the other thread that you have a problem with there being no black people there, despite the fact that the most likely random distribution would be non-black, and of course the reason you have a problem with that is because you hope (probably falsely*) that black people would be biased against Zimmerman.
*Because, unlike you, I don’t disparage the abilities of people with different skin tones to my own.