Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[WildCat]

What is it that you think this will prove? How will it help GZ look less like a killer? The vocal recordings of a very young teen going back 3 years.

My guess is they're anticipating the prosecution bringing in the types of voice "expert" woo we saw early on, and want recordings to counter with their own experts.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is the second time you've posted this, so I assume you think it's a real zinger?

I posted it to again add the link to the signed subpeona. The fact that you are calling other arguments ridiculous is just a bonus.

How is guessing wrongly about a matter of law or a judge's ruling a sign of a bad argument? I still think it's intrusive and abusive. I still think it's irrelevant to what happened that night.

The judge didn't explain in her order any of the legal reasoning behind it so I'll just assume this kind of order is more routine than I thought. That's ok, I don't pretend to be a lawyer.

Well then, you shouldn't make arguments that a legal motion shouldn't be granted because you believe its intrusive.

But you're the one who proclaimed that a voice analysis like this is woo. So if that's true for a recording of screams that were matched against an exemplar that George recorded after the murder, then just how do you think those can be matched to a kid whose voice was changing over the course of 3 years? You obviously can't turn around and argue that comparing old recordings to a recent one is more reliable than comparing it to an exemplar specifically recorded to match the voice print, so I think this is just sophistry on your part. "George win motion, motion good. Har har."

The FBI did an analysis ... I wonder why they did one if it's all woo ?

But really, I'm curious to see what, if anything, is actually produced -or if all those people claim they have no recordings of TMs voice.

I think it's probably going to be more relevant that Tracy Martin felt it necessary to lie about not recognizing the voice.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The Zimmerites* want the scream to be George's. Badly.

The SPD concluded it was GZ who was screaming.
Tracy Martin judged it was not the voice of his son screaming.

Witness 6 says GZ was the one screaming for help.

What's the evidence that it was TM screaming ?

 

[Unabogie]

I posted it to again add the link to the signed subpeona. The fact that you are calling other arguments ridiculous is just a bonus.

Me being wrong doesn't change whether or not what you've argued is ridiculous. Surely you're aware of this. This is not very flattering to you to be playing gotcha. Let's move on.

Well then, you shouldn't make arguments that a legal motion shouldn't be granted because you believe its intrusive.

I said it shouldn't be. I was wrong that it wouldn't be.

The FBI did an analysis ... I wonder why they did one if it's all woo ?

You were the one calling it "woo", not me. I'm just calling you out on yet another double standard. Is it woo when it helps George? Apparently now it's "sound science" when before it was the worst kind of woo since Uri Gellar.

But really, I'm curious to see what, if anything, is actually produced -or if all those people claim they have no recordings of TMs voice.

So you've already decided they would be lying? Interesting how low your bar is for people in the victim's family, while when it comes to George and his wife, the bar for lying is unbelievably high.

I think it's probably going to be more relevant that Tracy Martin felt it necessary to lie about not recognizing the voice.

Again, you're accusing the Martin family of "lying" while you still, even now, refuse to admit that Shellie Zimmerman lied in court about something demonstrably false in every way. If it weren't for double standards, what would you have left here?

 

[KatieG]

The SPD concluded it was GZ who was screaming.
Tracy Martin judged it was not the voice of his son screaming.
Witness 6 says GZ was the one screaming for help.

What's the evidence that it was TM screaming ?

They asked a shell shocked, grief stricken father if that was his son's voice. I can't imagine why he might not recognize the screaming voice on a poor recording.

FWIW, I don't believe in the woo of the voice experts. One day the science for that will be perfected but it isn't right now.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You were the one calling it "woo", not me. I'm just calling you out on yet another double standard. Is it woo when it helps George? Apparently now it's "sound science" when before it was the worst kind of woo since Uri Gellar.

They asked a shell shocked, grief stricken father if that was his son's voice. I can't imagine why he might not recognize the screaming voice on a poor recording.

FWIW, I don't believe in the woo of the voice experts. One day the science for that will be perfected but it isn't right now.

Again, Unabogie, please stop with strawmen. Where did I call it "sound science" ? Who exactly are you quoting with those quotation marks ?

I believe what I said before stands, which is if the prosecution has the possibility of bringing in voice experts to identify the voice as GZ, the defense would be remiss to not their own information and experts.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So you've already decided they would be lying? Interesting how low your bar is for people in the victim's family, while when it comes to George and his wife, the bar for lying is unbelievably high.

Look, another strawman !

But really, I'm curious to see what, if anything, is actually produced -or if all those people claim they have no recordings of TMs voice.

Please point out where you think I said/decided they would be lying ?

Again, you're accusing the Martin family of "lying" while you still, even now, refuse to admit that Shellie Zimmerman lied in court about something demonstrably false in every way. If it weren't for double standards, what would you have left here?

I'm not accusing Tracy Martin of lying, three SPD officers are.

 

[johnny karate]

I am pretty sure you know you are conflating a "strong case for self defense" and winning an immunity hearing.

I didn't conflate anything, but merely pointed out the disparity between claiming to have strong case, but then refusing an opportunity to present it.

However, a lot of good information can be gleaned from this post from Talkleft.

A hearing is held before trial. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies.
The judge weighs the facts. If the judge agrees the defendant has shown stand your ground immunity applies by a preponderance of evidence, the charges are dismissed. The defendant can't be prosecuted.

If the judge finds the defendant hasn't met his burden, (including if the disputed evidence is so equal on both sides the judge can't decide one way or the other) the case goes to trial to be decided by the jury. At trial, the defendant can still argue both self-defense and stand your ground immunity -- he only has to establish some evidence of his theory, which can be just his own testimony, that he acted in self-defense.

The prosecution must prove his guilt at the jury trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means, if the defendant raises self-defense or stand your ground at trial and gets the jury instruction, the state, which has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, must disprove self-defense. If the jury has a doubt, the defendant must be acquitted.

It's worth reading the whole post.

It is good information, but none of it addresses my query.

It has been asserted in this thread that the prosecution has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story, and that any inconsistencies in his story are immaterial.

The information you cited referes to the necessity of a preponderance of evidence. Well, I'm pretty sure no evidence wouldn't qualify as a preponderance.

So since the prosecution has no evidence - let alone a preponderance - again I ask, why don't Zimmerman's lawyers just put him on the stand in an immunity hearing, and crack open the champagne?

 

[Dan O.]

The judge didn't explain in her order any of the legal reasoning behind it so I'll just assume this kind of order is more routine than I thought. That's ok, I don't pretend to be a lawyer.

By granting the order, George won't have this issue to use when he files an appeal. Was there an objection filed against this request?

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not accusing Tracy Martin of lying, three SPD officers are.

Do those officers have access to your JREF account?

I think it's probably going to be more relevant that Tracy Martin felt it necessary to lie about not recognizing the voice.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I hadn't heard this before, but here is witness 8 talking to Crump over the phone.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/hear-phone-conversation-18622033

Her story tracks very well with the know evidence, all the way down to what the weather was like, how Trayvon adjusted his hoodie, and a description of the phone being knocked down at the start of the fight (which again, matches the flashlight's location, which supports the idea that the fight started where Trayvon was murdered). And unlike George, she wasn't even there and had never been to those houses in her life. Yet she describes the scene very well.

Interestingly, she speaks much better in this recording than when she was talking to BLDR. I suspect she gets very nervous around authority.

I finally had an opportunity to listen.

It's astounding to hear Crump coaching her along and directing her to say specific things.
"I want you to say "I thought he lost him, then he caught up" loud and slow ... 1...2...3 "

And she says on this recording: "the man about to beat him"

She didn't say anything about that to BDLR:
BDLR: Did Trayvon ever say, ‘The guy’s coming at me…he’s going to hit me?”
Dee Dee: …yeah…you could say that.
BDLR: Now I don’t want you to guess. Did he ever say that?
Dee Dee: How he said it? He did say…
BDLR: No, I want…do you understand? Did he say that or not? If he didn’t say it, that’s
alright…I, I…
Dee Dee: He got…the man got…
BDLR: Do you understand, I’m not trying to get you to say anything…

Why didn't she talk about the little bit "get off" she heard ? In this version the phone just shut off.

"Dee Dee: Yeah, I could hear it a little bit…”get off…get off,” then the phone just hung up.

Also, I'm curious - when did she tell this whole story to "Mr. Tracy" and "Ms. Sybrina" ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I didn't conflate anything, but merely pointed out the disparity between claiming to have strong case, but then refusing an opportunity to present it.

A strong case for self defense is not necessarily the same thing as a strong case for immunity, and yes,you did conflate them in exactly that way.

It is good information, but none of it addresses my query.

It has been asserted in this thread that the prosecution has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story, and that any inconsistencies in his story are immaterial.

The information you cited referes to the necessity of a preponderance of evidence. Well, I'm pretty sure no evidence wouldn't qualify as a preponderance.

So since the prosecution has no evidence - let alone a preponderance - again I ask, why don't Zimmerman's lawyers just put him on the stand in an immunity hearing, and crack open the champagne?

Since you'v already let us know what you think of a non-lawyers take on the law, I thought maybe information from an attorney would help you. Sorry you don't think it addressed your question. I hope you considered that the problem could be with your understanding of the law, not with the explanation.

Aside from legal, political consideration should be considered as well. It's my personal opinion that GZ would have to have an completely non-debatable preponderance of evidence proving his innocence for a Judge to grant him immunity and bypass a jury. And there is clearly not a completely non-debatable preponderance of evidence proving his innocence, as demonstrated by this thread....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Do those officers have access to your JREF account?

Fine, I believe that Tracy Martin lied based on my understanding that three SPD officers have given depositions stating that they heard Tracy Martin state that the voice screaming was not the voice of his son, Trayvon, as first reported by Detective Serino, which Mr. Martin subsequently denied saying.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Maybe you should read the article instead of focusing on the URL.

George Zimmerman's attorneys stunned court observers today by deciding to skip a "Stand Your Ground" hearing slated for April that might have led to a dismissal of the charges in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

Let me know when you find where it says he waived his right to a hearing, ok ?

What do you mean either way ? Clearly you believe he waived his right, don't you ?

OnlyTellsTruths - did you figure out where and when GZ waived his right to an immunity hearing, yet ?

 

[Unabogie]

Fine, I believe that Tracy Martin lied based on my understanding that three SPD officers have given depositions stating that they heard Tracy Martin state that the voice screaming was not the voice of his son, Trayvon, as first reported by Detective Serino, which Mr. Martin subsequently denied saying.

It's fascinating how when it comes to Witness 8 or the Martins' it's trivially easy for you to come to the firm conclusion that they are liars. But with George and his wife, it's nearly impossible. In fact, you say, we can never be sure if they lied because we're not mind readers, and memory is fallible, and George may have been in shock, and eye-witnesses are notoriously shaky, and maybe it was people around them influencing what they said in a way that made them look like they were lying but they really weren't.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's fascinating how when it comes to Witness 8 or the Martins' it's trivially easy for you to come to the firm conclusion that they are liars. But with George and his wife, it's nearly impossible. In fact, you say, we can never be sure if they lied because we're not mind readers, and memory is fallible, and George may have been in shock, and eye-witnesses are notoriously shaky, and maybe it was people around them influencing what they said in a way that made them look like they were lying but they really weren't.

 

[Unabogie]

You persist in flogging a glaring double standard and it's hard to ignore.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You persist in flogging a glaring double standard and it's hard to ignore.

I (and others) have explained the reasoning why I think SZ wasn't lying in her answers and isn't guilty of perjury. You obviously disagree with my reasoning.

I don't see the double standard.

ETA: please see if you can usual actual quotes from me and avoid your usual strawman arguments if you decide to reply.

 

[johnny karate]

A strong case for self defense is not necessarily the same thing as a strong case for immunity, and yes,you did conflate them in exactly that way.

No, I didn't. And I am at loss to find a way to explain that to you in any simpler terms.

Since you'v already let us know what you think of a non-lawyers take on the law, I thought maybe information from an attorney would help you. Sorry you don't think it addressed your question. I hope you considered that the problem could be with your understanding of the law, not with the explanation.

I'm not asking for a opinion about the law, nor am I sure why you would think that. My initial request was fairly straighfoward and plainly stated:

Now... according the legal geniuses in this thread, the prosecution has no evidence that can contradict or disprove Zimmerman's story, and any inconsistencies in Zimmerman's stories are insignificant.

So maybe someone can explain to me why the defense - with their strong case for self-defense - doesn't just simply put Zimmerman on the stand at an immunity hearing, have him tell the judge his airtight story, get acquitted and be done with it.

You have asserted repeatedly that the prosecution has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.

So in light of your assertion, how do you explain the reticence on the part of the defense to proceed with the immunity hearing?

Aside from legal, political consideration should be considered as well. It's my personal opinion that GZ would have to have an completely non-debatable preponderance of evidence proving his innocence for a Judge to grant him immunity and bypass a jury. And there is clearly not a completely non-debatable preponderance of evidence proving his innocence, as demonstrated by this thread....

But that's not your position. I'm asking you to defend your assertion that the prosecution has no evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story.

If the prosecution has no evidence, then why is the defense waiving the immunity hearing?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If the prosecution has no evidence, then why is the defense waiving the immunity hearing?

I think I see the the problem. Where exactly did the defense waive their right to file a motion for immunity ?