statistically wouldn’t the odds be 1/64?
1/(.5*.5*.5*.5*.5*.5)
Opening statements today. The prosecution went right after the flaws in the self-defense theory. No blood or DNA on Martin’s hands despite supposedly using them to cause the gashes on Zimmerman’s head. They’ll have to follow it up with the physical evidence later.
The “screams” tape was played despite expert testimony being disallowed. Guess jurors will be asked to decide for themselves.
No mention of either party’s race as yet.
I only saw the first 90 minutes or so of the defense’s opening statement, but the first 90 minutes or so was the most bumbling, stumbling, rambling, disorganized mess of a presentation that I’ve ever seen.
Starts off with a joke - a knock-knock joke. In a murder trial. Who the hell on GZ’s team thought that was a good idea?!? A friendly, engaging lawyer -might- have been able to pull it off - maybe - but West has completely the wrong style and demeanour for that. West followed that up by having the entire opening portion of his statement cut when the prosecution objected to giving a personalized account. Couldn’t remember names of participants. Jumped back and forth in the testimony. I guess the defense’s strategy is to completely befuddle and confuse the jury, in which case they’re off to a good start…
I was wrong, it’s 1 in 64 - which is 0.5^6, the chance of 6 50/50 events happening the same way each time. My point is that this is far from improbable enough to ring alarm bells by itself, even in a random selection, where one in 5 quintillion would be.
Lets assume that an event has a 1 in 66 chance of happening on a given day. You’d be mildly surprised if it happened to you today, but you’d expect it to happen once every couple of months. But, with only one day’s data, you can’t say whether something is affecting the likelihood of it happening.
Not so with the 1 in 5 quintillion chance. If there is that chance of it happening once a day, there is a 0.005% chance of it ever having happened to anyone who’s lived. I calculated that assuming that 10 billion people have ever lived, and each one lived for 70 years of 365 days - so (10billion70365)/5quintillion. I may be out by a factor of ten somewhere, but I think my point stands.
So, do you now see the difference? One, you would expect to see personally several times a year. The other. no-one has ever seen.
This is why the data from other trials is necessary to see if the distribution of women in juries is random or not, because if all we know is that one of more than 64 events has happened with a probability of 1 in 64, we have learned nothing of meaning. Now, if with a large enough sample, more than 1 in 64 juries are all women, then we see bias.
Of course, as has been repeatedly pointed out, jury selection is not a random event, making it even harder to draw conclusions from a small sample. For some crimes, or some locations, or other reasons, it may be more likely that a qualified juror will be black, or female, or elderly, or whatever. So, our selection of a representative sample of trials would have to take this into account.
So, to show bias in jury selection, you’ll need the figures from a weighted sample of trials that eliminates the intentional non-randomness of each individual jury selection.
I hope this has explained it somewhat better. I can’t exactly explain it as to a child, as statistics is both difficult and somewhat counterintuitive, and I’m trying to work through stuff I’ve not done for a while.
So, what is your issue with the jury in this case? One would expect any jury to be biased, as it’s a non-random choice. The statistical bias, perhaps ironically, is an attempt to eliminate judicial bias. If you want to claim that Florida jury selction is biased against certain groups of people, or that Florida justice as a whole is so biased, well, you might be right - but simply by looking at this case, you haven’t even provided evidence for it. Hopefully I’ve given some pointers as to how it could be shown, should you wish to.
I thought the actual experts were still allowed to testify?
Not so far as I understand. What would the substance of their testimony be?
That it is impossible to tell from the call who’s screaming, and that anyone who claims otherwise is wrong. That was the argument that was accepted when refusing the states fake experts the chance to testify. If the prosecution still claim that it’s recognisable as Martin screaming, why would the defence not be allowed to call their (court acknowledged) experts to refute that?
Yes, indeed. My apologies. I thought you meant the prosecution experts. Correct: defense experts that say there is no accepted scientific way to determine who is heard screaming could certainly still testify.
There were forty potential jurors picked and they were all female??
One of the defence experts claimed that it’s not possible to tell the age of the person from the screams, either, so that could potentially be used to refute any claim by witnesses that they heard a “boy” screaming. It’s my opinion that, if it’s reasonable to believe it may have been Zimmerman screaming, it’s reasonable to believe he may have been in fear of death or serious injury - which, of course, is one of the elements the prosecution have to disprove. They will then be left with showing that the fear cannot have been reasonable.
That’s certainly possible.
But Martin’s mother can testify as a lay witness that she knows her son’s voice, and she recognizes it on the tape.
No. From here-
2 from 10 are male. I’ve not seen anything about the composition of the 40.
Yes. And Zimmerman’s parents can testify that they know their son’s voice and they recognize it on tape.
Then, the defence will presumably ask how often she heard her son screaming in terror, and get their expert to say that, unless she had heard it before, she would not necessarily recognise it. It will then be left to the jury to decide if that shows beyond reasonable doubt it was Martin.
My opinion is that it doesn’t, but it is possible all the jurors will disagree.
Why would a voice expert say that?
A quote from the FBI expert witness, Dr Hirotaka Nakasone, on page seven of the ruling.
It may be that he’s only referring to scientific comparison, not recognising the screaming of someone who’s normal voice you know, but if not, he could testify to that.
Peter French, a voice expert, in his testimony:
“I’ve never come across a case in my 13 years where anybody’s tried to compare screaming to a normal voice”
Do you think a jury could be convinced a mother *never *heard her son scream in 17 years?
How about Zimmerman’s mother - has she heard her son scream in 28 years? Do you think she can recognize her son’s voice in a scream?