And if he were to say, “It was a violent, awful ordeal, and I can’t recall exactly what happened at which second”, what do you think that would indicate?
Dr. Nakasone is testifying. FBI voice expert.
Interesting that he’s already debunked those “experts” that the prosecution wanted to use. Dr. Nakasone is the real deal and very respected. I’ll accept his expert analysis.
Well let me ask you this. Does the voice screaming in the background of that 911 tape sound like it comes from someone who would very calmly and clinically, like Clint Eastwood, tell a stranger “just tell her I shot someone”? And we’re not talking about hours later either. Less than 1 minute after that blood-curdling voice went silent, we have Zimmerman saying this.
That he has have poor credibility and that this part of his account should not be believed absent any other corroborating evidence.
I agree, his account shouldn’t be believed absent any corroborating evidence.
However, it can’t be disbelieved, to the point of a conviction, without evidence, proving not just that Zimmerman’s account is partly flawed or wrong, but evidence proving all of the elements of second-degree murder and disproving self-defense. Merely proving that Zimmerman got some details wrong isn’t enough.
That evidence, if it exists, hasn’t been presented yet.
It can disbelieved for whatever reason the jury chooses to disbelieve it. Even if Zimmerman is able to supply an answer to every question the State throws at him, the jury is perfectly within its right to conclude he’s lying.
The phone call was made after the fight and screaming starts and after the person who dialed it interacted with Zimmerman. Per Zimmerman’s account Martin placed his hand’s on his face in response to his initial cry for help.
A substantial amount of time has passed between the time Zimmerman says Martin did this and the phone is dialed. It’s consistent with his account.
I phrased that poorly: the jury believing that Zimmerman isn’t being truthful isn’t enough for them to convict him, each element of the crime must be proven.
He can be a liar without being guilty.
But they can’t infer anything from that, all they may do is ignore his testimony. Their belief that he is lying doesn’t provide any evidence that the opposite is true.
Now, in practice, the reason someone will believe someone is lying is often that the opposite of what they’ve said has been proven to be true. That’s fair enough, and grounds for conviction in this case.
But, should the jury simply have a strong conviction that Zimmerman is untrustworthy, and disbelieve his claim of self defence, they may not convict on those grounds, and indeed the case should not even reach the jury if that is the case. It’s quite clear that that is what Human Action was saying.
To make it very clear, they may infer from evidence that something other than what he says is true that he is lying. They may not infer from their belief that he is lying that anything else is true.
The voice screaming on the 911 call sounds like someone getting beaten. The description of Zimmerman’s voice sounds like someone who was dazed from a beating and the trauma of having to shoot someone in self defense. How should he sound?
I really think people here are struggling with the meaning of “consistent with”. It doesn’t mean proof that his account is true, it doesn’t even necessarily mean evidence that it’s true. It means that it is not evidence that his account is false.
And that’s what’s required here. Evidence that shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in legitimate self defence, and hence murdered Martin. That is the evidence that’s sorely lacking in this case so far.
very interesting.
That is what I was trying to convey, thanks.
This is why I find the heavy focus on Zimmerman’s account and personal credibility a bit puzzling: on their own, flaws in his story aren’t enough for a conviction, because the state can’t prove the elements (barring new evidence) of the crime they’ve charged him with.
West is obviously ticked off. The prosecution took his witness.
They just strongly indicated there are bias issues with the upcoming testimony claiming the Martin’s recognized Trayvon’s voice. Why on earth did those idiots in Sanford group everyone together and listen to the tape? Thats a major error and will certainly make the jury question the validity of the voice id.
I’m puzzled by your puzzlement. All other things being equal, a defendant who is judged to lack credibility will have a harder time being acquited than one who is judged to be 100% truthful.
Unless you work at a boxing gym it might be time to look into another career.
That’s certainly true, but it seems like the pro-conviction folks would be better served by focusing on how the evidence is sufficient to prove the elements of the crime, if they honestly think Zimmerman should be convicted. Instead, it’s about 95% attacks on Zimmerman’s character, or his credibility, and the presentation of scenarios that depend on unsupported speculation. None of which is enough for conviction.
By analogy, it’s like a football team endlessly practicing special teams, but not offense or defense. Yes, good special teams play is important to winning a football game, but you literally cannot win without playing offense and defense.
So, this raises the question: clearly you think Zimmerman is guilty, but do you think it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Not if the prosecution cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
[ol]
[li]Defendant tells his story denying one or more of the elements of the crime with which he is charged, but none of which can be proven. Prosecution tells a different story, none of which establishes the elements of the crime. Defendant is not guilty.[/li][li]Defendant tells his story, some of which can be proven and some of which can’t. Prosecution tells a different story, which fails to establish one or more of the elements of the crime. Defendant is not guilty.[/li][li]Defendant tells a story, denying one or more of the elements of the crime with which he is charged. Some of his story is disproven. Prosecution tells a different story, which fails to establish all of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant is not guilty.[/ol]I think another thing people are struggling with is the distinction between “unproven” and “disproven”, and how they are applied to the prosecution’s case vs. the defense. Anything the prosecution does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt should be regarded by the jury as insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence. Neither can anything the defense says which is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt be regarded as sufficient to overcome that presumption. [/li]
Statements fall into three categories, not two -[ol][li]Proven []Unproven, and []Disproven.[/ol]The last two categories are not the same. Statements that are not proven are like Schroedinger’s cat - they are neither true, nor false. [/li]
That’s in ordinary thinking. In a court of law, however, that cat has to be assumed to be as dead as pork, unless and until the prosecution opens up the box and shows the jury.
“If they don’t open the box,
The defendant walks”
As Johnny Cochrane would have said if he were a quantum physicist.
Regards,
Shodan
Us little people out in here in Internet Land have no influence on this trial’s outcome. So we can focus on whatever we want to. The State is the one putting on this case, and they are well-experienced at proving murders. I assume they know what they have to do to win.
I was just going to say the same thing. Consistent means the evidence does not prove it false.
People keep claiming that Zimmerman lied but nobody has come up with clear evidence proving this. As an example, the position of Martin’s hands. Martin’s heart continued to pump blood after he was shot yet the claim is made that he could not move his hands a few inches or speak.