Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Kestrel]

You left out the girlfriend's call which the time it occurred compared to the time of the shooting is recorded evidence. There are only a couple minutes between the end of the call and the shooting. This is completely consistent with what the girlfriend heard on the phone and inconsistent with what GZ claims happened.

Have precise times been released for that call and the 911 calls on the night of the shooting?

 

[johnny karate]

Forensics experts say the voice screaming for help on the 911 call does not belong to Zimmerman.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Forensics experts say the voice screaming for help on the 911 call does not belong to Zimmerman.

From the article:

--"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.--

That leaves the possibility of a bystander screaming for help. Maybe even screaming for someone to help Zimmerman.

We still do not know.

 

[RandFan]

Forensics experts say the voice screaming for help on the 911 call does not belong to Zimmerman.

That could be a game changer.

 

[Kestrel]

That is what I have argued. I'm not as sure that GZ acted contrary to the dispatchers admonition. But I think he did and if he did I think it is manslaughter.

Listen to the background noises on Zimmerman's call the the police. You can hear him open the door of his truck. The wind noises, breathing and footsteps clearly indicate that he starts running after Martin. This dispatcher picks up on this and asks him not to. Zimmerman says OK, but keeps on running for a while. He then slows down, but he hasn't gone back to his truck. He starts to give his home address, then stops and mentions he doesn't know where this kid is, it's clear that he is worried about being overheard. Zimmerman is near where he thinks Martin is when the call to the police ends.

 

[johnny karate]

From the article:

--"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.--

That leaves the possibility of a bystander screaming for help. Maybe even screaming for someone to help Zimmerman.

We still do not know.

Which would mean that bystander could simply come forward to confirm that version of events.

Let me know just as soon as that happens.

 

[RandFan]

From the article:

--"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.--

That leaves the possibility of a bystander screaming for help. Maybe even screaming for someone to help Zimmerman.

We still do not know.

Did Zimmerman or any witness say there was a bystander screaming for help? That would seem quite the stretch.

 

[crimresearch]

Try to follow along here:






So we can take any positive claim and make it a negative by asserting the opposite?

This is excellent news for all the people who believe in Bigfoot. I guess science had better get cracking on proving Bigfoot doesn't exist.

When people (not just yourself) keep making claims about the law, Googling irrelevant laws, going for logical fallacies to support homemade legal assertions, and arguing incessantly with those who have provided accurate and objective legal comments...
The 'I was speaking strictly in terms of personal belief' bit just isn't that persuasive.

There just aren't enough facts to make these wild leaps.

The inaccurate speculation [/i]coupled with fingerpointing[/i], makes it look from here as though the real life parties in the situation are just a source of amusement.

 

[RandFan]

Listen to the background noises on Zimmerman's call the the police. You can hear him open the door of his truck. The wind noises, breathing and footsteps clearly indicate that he starts running after Martin. This dispatcher picks up on this and asks him not to. Zimmerman says OK, but keeps on running for a while. He then slows down, but he hasn't gone back to his truck. He starts to give his home address, then stops and mentions he doesn't know where this kid is, it's clear that he is worried about being overheard. Zimmerman is near where he thinks Martin is when the call to the police ends.

Thanks. I get so confused. I've got to listed again. That was my initial understanding but others have laid out different scenarios. Every time I think I have a handle on it I get it wrong again.

 

[johnny karate]

Did Zimmerman or any witness say there was a bystander screaming for help? That would seem quite the stretch.

I don't think you understand how this works. We have to keep adding complications to make Zimmerman's account fit the facts. That we would simply draw the most obvious and probable conclusion is preposterous.

 

[lane99]

1. I'm calling BS on this forensic "expert's" claim that his conclusion can be stated with "scientific certainty".

2. Did they test the cries for help against known samples of the deceased's voice?

3. Even if the cries were from the shooter, I don't think that absolves him from responsibility. Since they don't tell us who was the instigator, anyway. Big shot (pun intended) starts trouble, gets overpowered, and starts crying. Easily could happen.

 

[triforcharity]

Why is any of that relevant? It's only the final altercation that is relevant.

March 19th in Sanford FL:

Sunset: 7:36pm
Twi: 7:59pm

The Sun had not set at the time of the shooting.

Silly redhead!

His death was February 26th, before the time change.

26

Sunrise: 6:54am
Sunset: 6:23pm

So yes, it was dark, and the full moon was Feb 21st.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't think you understand how this works. We have to keep adding complications to make Zimmerman's account fit the facts. That we would simply draw the most obvious and probable conclusion is preposterous.

More straw, more bullhockey.


All you have to do is enjoy your schadenfreude.

 

[johnny karate]

1. I'm calling BS on this forensic "expert's" claim that his conclusion can be stated with "scientific certainty".

Care to elaborate on this?

2. Did they test the cries for help against known samples of the deceased voice?

The article states none were available. But common sense tells us the screams belonged to Martin.

3. Even if they cries were from the shooter, I don't think that absolves him from responsibility. Since they don't tell us who is the instigator, anyway.

But this latest piece of evidence certainly punches a hole in Zimmerman's version of events.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the article:

--"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.--

That leaves the possibility of a bystander screaming for help. Maybe even screaming for someone to help Zimmerman.

We still do not know.

It's not a theoretical scientific question, you can add in common sense and the rest of the evidence, you know.

We can say this is not the official analysis, but it did appear to come from a legitimate source.

 

[johnny karate]

More straw, more bullhockey.

Jekyll's Guest speculated that the screams could belong to an as-of-yet unmentioned mystery bystander. This is a complication added in order to avoid the probable conclusion the screams belonged to Martin.

No straw. No "bullhockey".

All you have to do is enjoy your schadenfreude.

Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Your posts continue too be an exercise in the bizarre and nonsensical.

 

[Kestrel]

Thanks. I get so confused. I've got to listed again. That was my initial understanding but others have laid out different scenarios. Every time I think I have a handle on it I get it wrong again.

To put it another way, Zimmerman started to chase the suspect. After about 15 seconds the dispatcher told him to stop. If he had turned around then and walked back, he would have arrived at his truck before the call ended.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

1. I'm calling BS on this forensic "expert's" claim that his conclusion can be stated with "scientific certainty".

2. Did they test the cries for help against known samples of the deceased's voice?

3. Even if the cries were from the shooter, I don't think that absolves him from responsibility. Since they don't tell us who was the instigator, anyway. Big shot (pun intended) starts trouble, gets overpowered, and starts crying. Easily could happen.

Did you bother reading the news report before this hand waving dismissal?

Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library's Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis — a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match.

After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.

"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

It tells us GZ was lying.

Like I said, "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

 

[lane99]

Care to elaborate on this?...

Was gonna edit my post to add a p.s. But will say here, instead:

Sight unheard, I will lay money that the shooter will be able to produce a so-called expert willing to testify that the voice is the shooter's.

 

[crimresearch]

Jekyll's Guest speculated that the screams could belong to an as-of-yet unmentioned mystery bystander. This is a complication added in order to avoid the probable conclusion the screams belonged to Martin.

No straw. No "bullhockey".



Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Your posts continue too be an exercise in the bizarre and nonsensical.

You weren't responding to what JG said, you were making a 'positive' albeit snarky assertion.
And the evasion plus the ever predictable ad homs add a whiff of desperation.

All those facts and citations, along with asking you to provide proof for your assertions, not the way you want to play?

Too bad, you are in the wrong place to have it your way.

I'll be sure to respond as soon as you produce something that is either correct or useful.