Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

You claim this low-res video is actually evidence of some sort. That's where you're delusional, every bit as when 9/11 truthers claim the plane that hit the WTC was a drone because in the youtube video no windows are visible.

My only claim regarding the video is that it shows Zimmerman's wounds are not severe enough to require bandages.

 

[johnny karate]

And you have this from first hand accounts and photos, how?

Oh from a video on the internet.

Wait... what? Are you asserting that it's not possible to tell from that video whether or not Zimmerman's head is bandaged?

 

[WildCat]

I had to transcribe this, for some odd reason my copy from PDF was not working.

It's locked so you can't copy it.

 

[Cylinder]

sooper-sekrit software

Dude-it will make your PC run faster and clear up those annoying registry errors.

 

[Moss]

I wish I had a farm. I could fill up scarecrows by the dozen by now.

 

[lane99]

911 tape again = night when I began

One webpage, two chuckles:

Laugh #1: The transcript generated, presumably by voice recognition (computer based)

Laugh #2: The defendant's not subtle enough attempt to confound voice recognition (human ear based)

 

[Noztradamus]

I guess you didn't watch the interview with CNN. He was asked if it would help to record a scream under the same circumstances and he said yes. Then he offered Zimmerman to do a recording. Why would he do this? To help better find the truth to everyone's satisfaction. Why is this a bad thing?

You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. ...
You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Martin's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And Zimmerman's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want him on that wall. You need him on that wall.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I don't see how either paper is really useful. Perhaps you could let us know what you think the relevant parts are (beyond the page numbers). Thanks.

My opinion on this subject is like the rest of the thread. There is not enough information or detail to make any reasonable determination on almost anything.

I am not going to argue for or against, I just thought I would post those links to provide some information. I regret doing it, as I held off on posting anything in response to a number of other points where people seem to be overly certain of things. I should have resisted the impulse.

 

[sgtbaker]

It was said previously that the vehicle entrances were open during the day, the the images on Google Street View certainly supports that. It may hang on what time at "night" they were closed, but obviously it would seem highly unlikely that Zimmerman wouldn't have mentioned it in his call to the police if he had seen Martin making an unconventional entrance!

I honestly can't tell if you are adding to what I am saying or thinking you are correcting it. I saw the suggestion that Trayvon might have been scaling walls to get in and said I don't think that happened and explained why I don't think it happened.

 

[RandFan]

Experts: Trust us.

No, please stop with the straw men.

If, and I mean IF, you are an expert and deemed an expert by the courts then:

• I will provisionally accept it for purposes of preponderance of evidence standards.
• For criminal court I would want the defense to challenge the evidence.
• If I were on a Jury today and had to vote guilty or not guilty for GZ without a defense challenge I would vote NOT guilty.

Now, I've said that at least a dozen time but you are working your damnedest to ignore it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I had to transcribe this, for some odd reason my copy from PDF was not working. So please correct any mistypes you see, thanks.

http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/Bio..._protected.pdf

Which appears to apply to identifying a speaker, not ruling one out.

Does anyone believe a voice analysis could not rule out an adult if the cries for help were coming from a 5 yr old child? I'm not talking about an adult that attempts to mimic a child's voice, but a cry for help under these circumstances. How about a 10 yr old child? How about a 17 yr old girl vs an adult man?

At some biometric point the voices of two people are clearly distinguishable under these circumstances. At least theoretically, it is possible to rule out certain people as the source of a recorded scream.

 

[RandFan]

The confounding factors that experts previously cited as being sufficient to discount voice analysis.

To use your DNA example, it's as if the experts had said that you can't get a valid DNA sample from urine, but now a DNA sample from urine was being presented. The new expanded range of use would need testing before I was happy with it, and it would constitute attempting to falsify a revised hypothesis (or theory depending).

What you are happy with is irrelevant. Lots of people are not happy with DNA evidence. What they are happy with is not relevant. Can you at least acknowledge that much? It's not up to you and I. It's up to the courts who rely on expert testimony. No one is arguing that GZ shouldn't be able to challenge the evidence. He has every right. For all I know this evidence won't even be allowed in. So your argument is pointless.

• Not you.
• Not me.
• Not the public.
• The courts decide who is an expert and what evidence is allowed in.
• If allowed in the defense has an opportunity to challenge.

I accept the evidence of the experts provisionally for preponderance of evidence standards. That's all. You are making this into something it's not.

 

[Cylinder]

I just want to know how the 2nd expert can claim he can authinticate the scream as Martin without even having heard an expemplar?

That's not science.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I just want to know how the 2nd expert can claim he can authinticate the scream as Martin without even having heard an expemplar?

That's not science.

Again from the context, he seemed to be relying on the almost certainty that it was one of Martin and Zimmerman who screamed (and I think the likelyhood that it was anyone else is miniscule in the circumstances). Because he felt he could absolutely rule out Zimmerman, he concluded it must have been Martin. Whether he is justified in his confidence in ruling out Zimmerman remains to be seen.

 

[nadsat]

Again from the context, he seemed to be relying on the almost certainty that it was one of Martin and Zimmerman who screamed (and I think the likelyhood that it was anyone else is miniscule in the circumstances). Because he felt he could absolutely rule out Zimmerman, he concluded it must have been Martin. Whether he is justified in his confidence in ruling out Zimmerman remains to be seen.

He's talking about the 2nd expert, Ed Primeau, who admitted to have not done any formal analysis/identification and relied on the online audio at MotherJones.com and his "mind's eye" to conclude that it's 95% Trayvon's voice. He also doesn't believe in the first expert's, Tom Owen, technology.

 

[Caper]

I just want to know how the 2nd expert can claim he can authinticate the scream as Martin without even having heard an expemplar?

That's not science.

It's an agenda. The media wants it to be true. The media has a story they want to spin... This guy is offering them proof to athenticate a story they WANT to believe. So that as why they are reporting this scream analysis. Hey they might be right and he might be credible but there is definately a desired agenda.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

He's talking about the 2nd expert, Ed Primeau, who admitted to have not done any formal analysis/identification and relied on the online audio at MotherJones.com and his "mind's eye" to conclude that it's 95% Trayvon's voice. He also doesn't believe in the first expert's, Tom Owen, technology.

I know that.

 

[Dancing David]

My only claim regarding the video is that it shows Zimmerman's wounds are not severe enough to require bandages.

Define wound dressing.

 

[KatieG]

No, please stop with the straw men.

If, and I mean IF, you are an expert and deemed an expert by the courts then:

• I will provisionally accept it for purposes of preponderance of evidence standards.
• For criminal court I would want the defense to challenge the evidence.
• If I were on a Jury today and had to vote guilty or not guilty for GZ without a defense challenge I would vote NOT guilty.

Now, I've said that at least a dozen time but you are working your damnedest to ignore it.

Why would you vote not guilty? Not being a smart mouth, I'm curious. Do you think TM somehow shot himself?

 

[RandFan]

Why would you vote not guilty? Not being a smart mouth, I'm curious.

I don't mean to patronize so if I come across that way then please to forgive me.

• In America a defendant is presumed innocent.
• For legal purposes I believe that until the case is adjudicated Zimmerman is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (though I hold the position that he is likely guilty).
• The state (prosecution) must demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• I don't believe that Zimmerman is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for a number of reasons.
• As it relates to the issue at hand, I don't know enough about the technology and have not seen it explained in court, nor have I seen the expert testify or be cross examined, nor have I seen a challenge to the technology by the defense. That's reasonable doubt.

Do you think TM somehow shot himself?

• The screams on the tape could be from Zimmerman.
• Zimmerman could be telling the truth and acted in self defense
• I hold by the preponderance of the evidence standard that the screams are not Zimmerman's.
• I don't hold that position beyond a reasonable doubt.