• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
SomedayGirl said:
I'm with you - the "gash" sometimes looks to me like X marks the spot but it could just as well be Jesus.

And much like a magician's misdirection, all the build up/ slow mo/ giant red circle just in case you missed it causes people not to look at other sequences on the tape. On the ABC "enhanced" segment, the injury is highlighted around the 1:00 mark but start at :40 and stop on :45. Clear view of the back of his head but no dark areas, no gash, not so much as a smudge on the back of Zimmerman's head.

Pixel pareidolia, indeed.
Click to expand...

Can you take a screen grab of this and post it?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
He's not a politician being accused of flip flopping. Scientific fields are known to advance and juries are capable of understanding that.
Click to expand...
The software Owen is using needs a speech sample much longer then what was in the 911 call with the screams. When Easy Voice Biometrics was used to analyze two extended sound files of Nixon speaking under different recording conditions it only returned an 86% match even though it was clearly the same person. The EVB website advises that with something like an 86% match a human audio expert should be brought in to make a final determination. The vendor is marketing the product for it's speed and ease of use but they actually say themselves that it is inferior tool for absolute identification compared to old school human analysis. The notion that there has been an advance in audio biometrics that excuses Owen's recent comments is in contradiction to a marketing video of the very product Owen is hyping.
 
John Albert said:
According to this, the lead homicide detective filed an affidavit saying he disbelieved Zimmerman's story and wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but the State's Attorney's office refused to file charges saying there was insufficient evidence.
Click to expand...
I don't recall if the appropriate statutes have been previously provided, but only a limited incarceration time is allowed. In this case the DA apparently does not yet have sufficient allowable-at-trial evidence to convict and as such doesn't want GZ arrested yet. The reason the lead homicide detective nor a DA were not at the scene remains unclear to me.

What I don't get is how they arrived at that decision. They'd scarcely even begun the investigation. All they had was Zimmerman's (apparently dubious) testimony and that of a few eyewitnesses. They didn't even wait until they got a chance to talk to more witnesses or listen to the 911 call recordings? Seems that the Sanford police were far more concerned with covering their own asses against a civil suit for wrongful arrest, than the fact that a teenage kid lay shot to death for no good reason at all.

All I can say is, y'all have some messed up laws down there in Florida. What kind of legislature thinks it's a good idea to prohibit officers from making an arrest in a homicide case, just forego an investigation and just let a killer walk free, so long as the guy has a good-sounding cover story? It's insane. There's no other word for it.
Click to expand...
Sanford PD did not, as has been previously discussed, do a reasonable job.

I ever want to kill somebody, I'll have to remember to go do it in the Sunshine State.
Click to expand...
The author of a book detailing Ted Bundy's mis-adventures speculated Bundy's last murders were chosen to be in FL as it is?, certainly was, a death penalty state, so that might not be a good idea.

I suspect and at least hope manslaughter will be charged if and when sufficient evidence to convict GZ becomes available. The lousy investigation -- clothing not kept, no alcohol or drug tests, etc -- imo makes the chance difficult at best.

ps. I apologise if these comments have been made in the previous 50 odd pages which I'm not going to read tonight. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
sgtbaker said:
A doctor who's never seen him is basing his diagnosis on a grainy video that never gives a close up on his nose. I'll tell you, now I am convinced!

Sarcasm directed at doctor, not at you Unabogie.
Click to expand...
this is getting to be lot like a Truther thread. Where is the Dutch demolition expert?
 
SomedayGirl said:
Not that talented, Unaboogie. LOL But here's a page with the ABC segment on it, perhaps you have the gift?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/trayvon-martin-case-enhan_n_1397022.html

As I said, go to around :40 where Zimmerman is exiting the car. Around :45 is I think the clearest view of the back of his head in that segment of the surveillance.
Click to expand...

I'm on a crappy netbook right now, so I'll see if I can do anything. If not, I'll try and do it tomorrow. It'd be helpful to see a few views as still shots instead of telling people where to pause the video.
 
Unabogie said:
...I would say he's proven his qualifications to a huge number of people over the course of 28 years, including courts and adversarial lawyers.
Click to expand...
And you know that how? Because he tells you?? We have no idea what this mans reputation is among peers in his field. Do you know how many times he has actually testified in a trial? Do you know how many times it's been torn apart and shown to be questionable? No, because people don't publish that on their web pages or brag about it when the media interviews them.
 
I'm not sure if this is a great shot. Here's what I see at 45 seconds. I've actually never uploaded a photo to the JREF before so I probably did it all wrong :-)

picture.php
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
And you know that how? Because he tells you?? We have no idea what this mans reputation is among peers in his field. Do you know how many times he has actually testified in a trial? Do you know how many times it's been torn apart and shown to be questionable? No, because people don't publish that on their web pages or brag about it when the media interviews them.
Click to expand...

Do you have a shred of evidence that either of them have a poor reputation or have ever been "torn apart"?

You're basically impugning both of them based on wishful thinking. I'm open to evidence that either of them aren't what they claim, but so far the biggest criticism seems to be that they don't believe Zimmerman's version of events.
 
Unabogie said:
He denies "interfering".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-usa-florida-shooting-prosecutor-idUSBRE83116420120402
Click to expand...

That's only half the quote. What he said in the full quote is:

"I am outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter by Benjamin Crump to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austin dated April 2, 2012. I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred. I have been encouraging those spreading the irresponsible rhetoric to stop and allow State Attorney Angela Corey to complete her work. Another falsehood distributed to the media does nothing to forward that process."
Click to expand...

This is the allegation to which he is responding.

The letter says that on the night of the shooting, State Attorney Norm Wolfinger and Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee met and chose to overrule the lead homicide investigator, who said that Zimmerman should be arrested for manslaughter.

The letter claims the investigator filed an affidavit saying that he did not find Zimmerman's statements regarding the shooting to be credible. The letter also says that Zimmerman's family members were present at the police department when Wolfinger and Lee met regarding the case.
Click to expand...

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/new...ws/articles/cfn/2012/4/2/martin_family_attorn

I am adding to what you put, not correcting it. FWIW, I think the Martin family lawyer is running out of people to call conspiracy on. He may end up alienating supporters with his reckless allegations.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
Do you have a shred of evidence that either of them have a poor reputation...
Click to expand...
I didn't say they did. The point which was rather clear is why would you assume all those positives? Because his (Mr. Primeau) website tells you so? You made a statement earlier about "all the times he's testified". Again, can you tell me how many times he has actually testified in court? If not an exact number, more than 5? More than 25? More than 100? if you can't give me an answer yet are making comments about all the times he's testified in court then you're clearly just convincing yourself of whatever you want to believe.

..but so far the biggest criticism seems to be that they don't believe Zimmerman's version of events.
Click to expand...
Um no, if that's what you've gotten from this then you're projecting your own biases onto others. I'd find their statements equally outrageous if they had confirmed Zimmerman's version and I and others have said that repeatedly. My objection is with their claim that they can say who was (not) screaming, not which person they happen to claim that is.
 
Last edited:
curi0us said:
The software Owen is using needs a speech sample much longer then what was in the 911 call with the screams. When Easy Voice Biometrics was used to analyze two extended sound files of Nixon speaking under different recording conditions it only returned an 86% match even though it was clearly the same person. The EVB website advises that with something like an 86% match a human audio expert should be brought in to make a final determination. The vendor is marketing the product for it's speed and ease of use but they actually say themselves that it is inferior tool for absolute identification compared to old school human analysis. The notion that there has been an advance in audio biometrics that excuses Owen's recent comments is in contradiction to a marketing video of the very product Owen is hyping.
Click to expand...
Then why is it Owen drew a conclusion? Why didn't he say what you claim he should have said?
 
Owen is on Lawrence O'Donnell along with Primeau and both are supporting their conclusions the screaming is not GZ. Owen also says he has used the technology in a case that was accepted in court.
 
Last edited:
Natural Born Skeptic said:
I didn't say they did. The point which was rather clear is why would you assume all those positives? Because his website tells you so? You made a statement earlier about "all the times he's testified". Again, can you tell me how many times he has actually testified in court? If not an exact number, more than 5? More than 25? More than 100? if you can't give me an answer yet are making comments about all the times he's testified in court then you're clearly just convincing yourself of whatever you want to believe.


Um no, if that's what you've gotten from this then you're projecting your own biases onto others. I'd find their statements equally outrageous if they had confirmed Zimmerman's version and I and others have said that repeatedly. My objection is with their claim that they can say who was (not) screaming, not which person they happen to claim that is.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for Owen, since in his interview linked earlier, he says he's testified over 300 times in court. More than 100? Yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom