I think that's just about what happened.

Think about this Rochard. What has the prosecution proven? What is the prosecutions version of events? What has the prosecution said happened exactly and how have they proven it? The prosecution is attacking Zimmermans version of events. Thats fine. Perfect. Thats what they should be doing.

However...

What is the prosecutions version of events? When can all agree Zimmerman murdered a kid. Fine. Has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about the law and proving a Murder 2 charge. The prosecution has not even offered a version of what happened and as such, has not proven that version beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman can lie about everything. He might have not told a single word of truth. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove every element of the case.

Where has anyone seen a murder trial where the prosecution did not walk everyone through THEIR FULL AND COMPLETE version of what happened. They haven't done that. They've tried to call into question all of what Zimmerman said, did etc. However, they have not proven what happened. What happened meaning a very detailed account from start to finish, without holes in it from the first 911 call to the time police arrived. The prosecution has not proven that Martin didn't walk up to Zimmerman and punch him in the face.

Everyone can disagree all day long with Zimmermans story, his account and so on. But everyone seems to keep forgetting that the Prosecution has to prove not only that Zimmermans account is wrong, but they have to prove their own version of events beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution even gave two possibilities of how Martin was shot. This is an example of why I am interested in the legal side. Just giving two different possibilities of how Zimmerman shot Martin means that there is reason to doubt either. Two versions means there's a reasonable doubt as to whether either happened. That's a problem for the prosecution who is supposed to have a theory and defend it, leaving no doubt whatsoever.

We all understand someone got shot and its horrible and personally, i'm 100% ok with Zimmerman getting set on fire in his cell tonight.

I'm not interested in Zimmerman.
I'm not interested in Martin.
I'm not interested in retarded race baiting.
I'm not interested in justifiable homicide and gun laws or anything else.

What interests me is the criminal justice system and the fact that a trial was forced by politicians after investigators found no reason to charge Zimmerman, that Obama had to take a swipe at it as President of the United States, affecting the jury pool, that the media (NBC/CNN?) was playing a doctored 911 call, that all media outlets were showing a pic of Zimmerman in a orange jumpsuit looking like a thug along side a pic of a 12 yr old Martin and so on and so on and then a prosecutor showed up with almost nothing. His strongest evidence is the non emergency call where he basically has to use that to show Zimmerman as a vicious murderer and the fact is that Zimmerman is guiding police to his location, his voice and demeanor the whole time is very calm and he almost sounds like someone too lazy to care about anything. He doesn't sound like a killer. HE was there to do a job. He was doing his job. Clearly everyone misunderstood each other. It ended horribly. But the prosecution has to use those tapes to make him sound like a killer because there is nothing else. Just the fact that the prosecution asked for 3rd degree murder and child abuse is bizarre.

The whole thing is insanely bizarre.... and no doubt tragic. Tragedy happens all day, every day, all over the world. A Chinese girl got thrown out of a Boeing 777 and then was ran over by a rescue vehicle. Thats what life is. There doesn't have to be a good guy and a bad guy. There doesn't have to be an attacker and a victim. There doesn't have to be two lives destroyed because one life was destroyed. It's certainly not reasonable in a country that loves its rhetoric about justice to hold a politically motivated murder trial, fire a police chief and end his career and destroy someones life based on very shaky evidence and no real theory as to what happened. When the closing arguments are about skittles and quoting Martin Luther King... not reminding everyone of the exact sequence of events, how that theory and every element of the charge were proven beyond a reasonable doubt... that should be a red flag to anyone who believes in freedom or justice.

I presented the original audio, not today's arguments because as I said earlier, opening statements and closing arguments ARE NOT EVIDENCE and shall not be interpreted as such. For this reason, I did not spend 3 hours spellbound as I had other things to do. I did however, listen to a vast majority of the testimony (aka: the evidence).

And this is when your late decision to start following the trial begins rearing its ugly head. You have partial stories.

See, the problem is you already said you were not following the trial; I do not really have the time or inclination to bring you up to speed. Besides, I know it would not do me, you or the jury any good if I did.

I have lived here since 1985 . . . I would have to guess on the street names in my own neighborhood. I have friends I have known for years; been to their homes 100 times and I could not tell you their address to save my life. The cops asked for an address and he did not know it . . . not that hard to believe.

I could care less about Martin, Zimmerman, gun control, or race. When debating such topics you have to remove certain subjects - like race. Let's say both Zimmerman and Martin were white, what do you get? You get MY TEENAGER wearing a hoodie on her way to her friend's house taking a shortcut between houses and getting shot dead because someone thought my kid looked suspicious and became judge, jury, and executioner... It's just not acceptable to me.

Then you factor in his story just doesn't add up. From the very first pictures of Zimmerman and his bloody lip it didn't add up. None of it adds up - why did an armed man get out of a car and pursue a suspect? He was hit twenty-five time and only got a bloody zip and two cuts on the back of his head? Come on.... Didn't know one of three streets in his complex? Hell, it was the biggest street in the complex, and Zimmerman passed it every day when he left the complex - bullshit.

Then the gun... how did Zimmerman, with his mouth full of blood and being beat silly, reach BEHIND him to pull out his firearm?

Why did Zimmerman say he walked towards Martin, then 24 hours later say Martin jumped out of the bushes?

This wasn't self defense at all. He gunned down an innocent teen.

At the very least he's guilty of manslaughter with additional firearm charges.

Rochard - just admit it is your opinion, not based in fact; we have come to terms with it.

I wasn't commenting on the case at all. I would hope it would be pretty obvious however, that the effects of memory loss under severe stress would be increased in a fight. So i'm not sure how you think you're odd rhetoric which is largely unrelated to my point makes any sense.

Clearly you have no idea what I was talking about at all. Anyone that has been in a few fights knows perfectly well that you typically remember very little about what occurred and you have to ask others.

When you are in fight or flight mode, your brains normal trick of deleting useless information is heightened, Memories are useless. Remembering is useless as it pertains to survival in that moment. Storing information under those circumstances in not useful, your brain function speeds up dramatically and all it is concerned with is getting out of the situation which becomes its only focus.

Memory is a rather complex thing as is the sympathetic nervous system and i'm too lazy to fact check and write a full explanation on the brains impaired ability to store and then recall information under stress, stress related amnesia as well as the diminished cognitive function in the moment. Suggesting it doesn't happen is absurd.

Just curious, is it more you can relate to '"those assholes always getting away" or are you pissed about being called a cracker that pulls you towards being so infatuated with Zimmerman?

You keep talking about "fact" and saying I don't look at the evidence and that I am not watching the trial. I'm posting photos and videos that are evidence, using police reports to compile facts and time lines, and I'm watching more of the trial than not.

I post a statement from today's trial where Zimmerman himself said he walked up to Martin, and your only defense is "it's not evidence because it's part of the closing". I am pretty confident that is part of the evidence, and no matter because the jury just heard Zimmerman's voice say he approached Martin.

NONE of the "facts" from ZIMMERMAN'S DEFENSE add up. None of them. Not one. You accept Zimmerman's story as "fact". But it's not fact at all; It's Zimmerman's defense.

Zimmerman spent seventeen minutes tracking and stalking a seventeen year old boy and then shot and killed him.

Well then, you would be wrong.

ANYTHING the jury hears during closing arguments IS NOT considered evidence, period.

If the jury takes anything said during either sides closing argument into consideration as evidence then it will be a mis-trial and the juror or jurors will be held in contempt of court.

Again, in case you missed it the first time ANYTHING THEY HEAR during both sides closing arguments IS NOT evidence that they can use to base their verdict on.

I could agree with that.

However, if you can't trust anything Zimmerman says because of "memory loss under severe stress" then anything he said can considered suspect.

My knowledge of this case mostly comes from this thread, haven't watched the trial.

This is a 'he said, he would have said if he were alive' case it seems, none of the evidence strongly proves or disproves Zimmerman's story and his story is all there really is.

BUT ..... that first 9-1-1 call with the cries for help in the background, if that was Martin's voice it is compelling and damning evidence against Zimmerman's story. Martin's mother identified the voice crying for help as her son's. Those cries came well before the fatal gun shot and they're pretty loud. You'd think with technology there'd be a way to determine whose voice that likely was. What was the testimony like regarding the identification of whose voice that was calling for help?

No, I am a fan of law; I used to work in a law office and was a paralegal. Before Nancy Grace became a star I used to love watching Court TV.

And I was probably called a cracker before you were born. A cop used it to describe me; I heard him say it, I looked around and realized I was the closest thing to a cracker in the vicinity. This was 1979.

Like I said above, I did not sit and watch the entire closing argument; the original tape is online, post a link to the one that the Prosecution kept starting and stopping if it is not one I posted. Please.

"In the last pre-trial hearing, Judge Debra Nelson ruled that technology used to identify voices heard on the 911 calls weren't valid and would not be allowed in court. Witnesses for both sides of the case have testified regarding whose voice they think is heard on that call."

that sucks, surely one of the media outlets has hired a professional expert with that technology to get their opinion - may not be admissable in court but in the court of public opinion it is.

Mutt,

There actually wasn't any evidence allowed for that, the reason being, the guy who did the 'analysis' didn't actually have enough data from the recording to analyze it correctly so instead, what he did was 'loop' the segment he had several times to make the correct length of audio.

Both sides of this case agreed that wasn't 'legit' so his evidence was not admissible in court because he basically fucked the evidence up.

That is also the reason why all the court heard was testimony from both parents saying that it was 'his' voice that was screaming on the audio tape.

The interesting thing about that testimony though, is that initially his (Martins) father told the cops that he didn't know who's voice it was screaming out for help yet, miraculously, during his day of testimony he recanted that saying that he 'just heard my son die'.

When asked about this, he told the court that the recording of him saying it wasn't his son was wrong, despite it being his voice on the tape and being in full agreement it was his voice on the tape at the start of his testimony.

Both side I honestly feel in this case are making shit up as they go along to 'win' for their side, we will never know what really happened that night, it could be that Zimmerman did profile, stalk and kill the little black kid, it could be that everything Zimmerman is saying is truthful, how he was sucker punched first, had his head beaten on the ground, the thug who was attacking him went for his gun and Zimmerman defended his life after being told that was the night he was' going to die' by Treyvon.

We will never know, all we will know is that 2 families have been changed forever because of the events on that night, one of them is currently around $1m better off financially because of it and has a registered trademark granted on the name of Treyvon Martin. The other currently has a family member on trial for 2nd degree murder.

well a bunch of voice identification experts i see have done analysis of that call for media outlets and some say it's not Zimmerman and conclude it's Martin's and another expert opined that BOTH Martin and Zimmerman cried for help.

If Trayvon Martin actually was crying for help, to me it changes things dramatically.

The witnesses regarding voice identification are all worthless, as a jury member i'd totally ignore them all.

That technology has been used in trials - don't know why this judge won't allow it in, the defense would have ample opportunity to bring in critics of the technology.

(CBS) SANFORD, Fla. - The voice heard calling for help on a 911 call just before Trayvon Martin was fatally shot was not that of George Zimmerman, two forensic voice identification experts told MSNBC on Sunday.

Photos: Trayvon Martin

"The tests concluded that it's not the voice of Mr. Zimmerman," Tom Owen, of Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence said.

If those cries for help were Trayvon Martin's I nor anybody else should accept Zimmerman acted in self defense.

They are experts for cash; they will say what you want to hear. :2 cents:

well here's the reason the judge didn't allow it to be used.

(CNN) -- Two days before George Zimmerman goes on trial, voice recognition experts testified it is not possible to positively identify whose screams are heard in the background of the 911 calls made the night Trayvon Martin was shot.

Florida Judge Debra Nelson will continue the hearing on the admissibility of the experts' testimony at a later date. Jury selection begins Monday.

A third audio expert was unable to testify Saturday because he was stuck on a plane.

The defense argues the state's audio experts are using unproven science to determine who is heard screaming and they shouldn't be allowed to testify. Nelson wanted to hear about the technology used for voice analysis.

Trayvon Martin shooting Fast Facts

Forensic audio expert Dr. Peter French, who testified via teleconference from the United Kingdom, described research involving the recording of stressed cries versus normal voice samples.

In the case of the 911 calls, French said that the poor quality of the recorded voices means that none of the processes available can provide any useful information about the identity of the screaming person.

"I've never come across a case in the 30 years of my career where anybody has attempted to compare screaming with normal voices," French said.

French also said in this case the recording "isn't even remotely suitable for speaker comparison."

George Doddington, an electrical engineer who works as an adviser with the National Security Agency, testified Saturday that his conclusion about the 911 call was similar to Dr. French's: that due to the quality of the data, it is not going to provide any viable source for making an identity decision.

Doddington said evaluating one second of speech to reach a conclusion is "ridiculous."

"The less you have, the worse the performance," he said.

Also the moment the gun goes off the cries stop like a switch turned them off.

I did: https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19713422&postcount=1112

Start at 17:20.

Zimmerman says "I walked towards him". So much for Martin "jumping out of the bushes" and then "surprising him".

This is something I don't understand about our legal system.

I remember watching the forensic ME, who discussed his qualifications for two hours. He was clearly over qualified and the longer he sat there on the stand the more money he was paid. He said he was charging some $200 an hour or something like that. And while I listened to him ramble on... I started to wonder how many other medical examiners they talked to before settling on him. The defense interviewed ten or twenty medical examiners with similar qualifications, and they picked the one that saw the things the way the defense wanted AND looked presentable in court. But wouldn't this be a biased opinion? He is an expert, but an expert on the payroll of the defense, and they most likely had to speak to a dozen candidates and it's possible that not all candidates agreed with the defense's version of what happened.

Doesn't this make everything this "expert" says suspect?

Why doesn't the court hire an expert, split the costs between both sides, and no one gets to speak to him (her) before they testify. This way we know this is an expert that has been hand selected and isn't working for either one side.

Please read MY REQUEST again: the original tape is online, post a link to the one that the Prosecution kept starting and stopping if it is not one I posted. Please.

In other words, I do not want the stop and go version with the Prosecutor inserting his commentary. Post the original.

Yes 5678

I have Always wondered this myself.
An attorney friend told me the reason the court doesn't hire a third party is BOTH sides choose what expert they use, so it equals out... lol That each expert knows which side they are being paid by.

A third person would confuse the jury even more.

He had several other reasons, but I don't remember them this was back in 1994 ----

The court is impartial. The court does not appoint witnesses. That would not be impartiality.

Each side calls their own witnesses and each side has the opportunity to tear those witnesses apart. Thats about as fair as it can be.

I don't have original. I didn't know about the audio recording until the closing arguments. I spent enough time trying to track this down and locate exactly where the statement is; I am not about to do it again because you don't like the stop and go version.

Zimmerman has contradicted his version of the story - in one he "walked towards Martin" and in the other Martin "jumped out of the bushes and surprised him".

But if you have two "expert witnesses" who claim the evidence say different things... They just confused everyone.

i was reading in an article, i think, about the woman who shot herself in the leg claiming someone stole her baby or something and the invesstigators these days seem to think a suspect is generally telling the truth if their story does change. apparently the thinking is that if the suspect has a rock solid recollection of what happened, that is pre-conceived.

i don't know, but that was the rationale.

But that is exactly what I am saying - the so called experts being called in are not impartial at all. Instead, they are hand selected because they re-enforce what one side wants the jury to hear.

Why doesn't the court locate and hire an impartial expert? And both sides shouldn't be able to talk to him (her) until questioning at the trial. The expert needs to be impartial, not backing up one version or another.

they still tell the truth. it's up to the jurors to make their own determination.

I am asking for the unedited version, that's all . . . the actual evidence . . . the edited video you saw during closing argument is not evidence. Sorry.

When all the bullshit is said and done a kid was killed.
http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-m...ium=socialflow

saw that, what is up with this:

'Were I a slave to journalistic norms,'

:disgust

Please, for fuck's sake just shut up and let this thread die.

squealer's not gonna let that happen! :1orglaugh

Yeah, sad. Too bad he did not continue on his way to his destination instead of confronting GZ.

wow, that's guy's really aggro! does he get this aggro over every murder?

and because the guy that shot him said that in his many versions. of course we believe that.