Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[KatieG]

It's funny... I saw BDLR yelling a lot, waving his arms and making a lot of tu quoque arguments. Definitely precieved it differently than you. Can you provide some examples of how he "shishkabobded" West, because I seem to have missed those ?



MOM had motions for specific discovery, I believe Nelson granted all those.

(Of course, the state can't provide the "enhanced" 911 call that Crump claims Tracy Martin listened to, because the state has provided no such enhanced recording to Crump, although 1 year later they are "still working on that" according to BDLR)

MOM had a motion to add additional witnesses, it was granted.

MOM wanted the HOA agreement in the record and unsealed, and it's going into the record redacted, and he gets an un-redacted copy.

MOM asked for sanctions, and AFAIK, the state will be sanctioned for both the video and covering up the witness 8 LIE, the monetary amounts both TBD at a later date.

In a few days, when all the orders are published, it will b easy to verify all the things written above.

How exactly is that anything remotely like what you claimed above ?



Which parts didn't go well for the accused today ?

Tracy Martin listened to the call on better equipment, not an enhanced version of the recording. The defense has the same thing available to them. So what's the problem?

 

[Alt+F4]

Think about how most Americans live.

We go to work, we don't shoot unarmed teenagers, we don't get hundreds of thousands of dollars given to us by suckers on the Internet who think it's for our defense but is really used to pay our outstanding credit card bills.

We don't don't lie to judges, we don't make up secret codes to communicate to our spouses.

We don't constantly call the police. We are not charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer. We are not served with a restraining order indicating domestic violence.

 

[Dancing David]

Now, according to the CTH:
On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.

How much of a match exactly and by whom? Your source is a tad suspect.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Discovery is not a fishing contest, now is it?

You indicated something about where TM lived as evidence, that is fishing.

I am allowed to 'fish', this is the Internet, not a court of law. I am throwing out some possibilities of something that may be relevant. I did caveat it, saying it might be evidence. I also said:

As I don't have the benefit of the evidence from investigators, police documents and depositions, I don't know if there is any actual inquiry into this issue or not.

MOM, I would assume, asked the family members about where TM was living, and why. And if it something that is relevant, I assume we'll see it during the trial.

How much of a match exactly and by whom? Your source is a tad suspect.

It was claimed all of the items identified in TMs possession are a subset of the stolen items listed in the police report.

The police report (PD111021-422483) is public record, afaik. So, maybe the source is suspect, but what they claim can be verified by someone in a position to look at the police report.The ability for that information to be verified leads me to initially believe the claim.

 

[johnny karate]

How much of a match exactly and by whom? Your source is a tad suspect.

They're just unsourced claims from a right wing website.

What's not to believe?

 

[Dan O.]

The police report (PD111021-422483) is public record, afaik. So, maybe the source is suspect, but what they claim can be verified by someone in a position to look at the police report.The ability for that information to be verified leads me to initially believe the claim.

Since you actually know nothing about this besides what is comming from one undocumented source, as far as you really know, the case may be totally bogus. The ability of that information to be redily verified and the fact that it hasn't should cast serious skepticism about it and it's source.

 

[Dancing David]

It was claimed all of the items identified in TMs possession are a subset of the stolen items listed in the police report.

The police report (PD111021-422483) is public record, afaik. So, maybe the source is suspect, but what they claim can be verified by someone in a position to look at the police report.The ability for that information to be verified leads me to initially believe the claim.

It was claimed by whom? Again they are more than a bit suspect.

What they claim is suspect, they have no idea at all, it is not fact, it is vague speculation at best. What exactly does this vague source say is a match? Does it give brands, styles, weight and composition?

There is no evidence presented whatsoever that the items that TM had a school are linked to that local burglary.

Unless you think 'some dude' on the internet is credible.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

You may find the Treehouse to be a suspect source of news, and I have definitely seen some stories there before (most related to Obama not this case) which struck me as too far down the "everything is a 5 layer conspiracy" path, but when you're talking about a situation where they are uncovering (through FOIA or otherwise) actual official documents, and drawing logical conclusions from them... I think skepticism becomes a bit of a shield against those logical conclusions for some.

We'll see if some of these things end up being substantiated by other sources. Unfortunately, most major news organizations absolutely loathe to portray African-Americans in a bad light, some even have standing policies against doing so which they've gone on the record admitting to.

Sounds like the Treehouse has been told directly by a Sanford area news outlet (some guess it's the Orlando Sentinel) that they are uninterested in covering anything about burglary, etc. I don't think it's a stretch to realize this is because they are afraid of being called racist, and particularly afraid of it in the context of "stomping all over that unarmed innocent child's memory." It's a double whammie. Too bad the press put so much effort early on into sainting him, it makes proper coverage now a lot harder for them to do.

 

[Cylinder]

I think the next steps for Zimmerman in the trial court will likely be some evidentiary motions concerning the audio identifications and W8's testimony.

I think Zimmerman will want the court to exclude expert testimony on voice identifications from the 911 call based on the FBI Audio Lab's report. That issue should be a given, but I'm guessing that O'Mara will want this issue decided so they can either move forward or ignore it.

I think Zimmerman will also want to exclude of limit W8's statements. Statements such as someone hitting Martin and Martin turning around may be targeted here. It will be interesting to see if O'Mara asks to exclude her as a witness, though I doubt the court will be too eager for that. One tack, I think, would be to argue that since apparently Martin left the area for some time and that this activity wasn't reflected in W8's statements that it indicates that the contemporaneous account was given in a manner that indicates untruthfulness - which would negate the hearsay exception.

W8's statements cut both ways really. First, she corroborates Zimmerman's claim that he was confronted by Martin - contrary to the state's own assertion. The "just a fight" quote from the Francine letter (and the circumstances of the letter itself) helps Zimmerman - along with the fact that she had to travel to Jacksonville with W8 to give a statement to the SAO. Without W8's statement, the state is only left with conjecture regarding Zimmerman's own account.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And?

As far as I'm aware, neither of Martin's parents are audio experts, so this issue will not hinge on anything they have to say. It will hinge on what actual audio experts have to say.

It is ludicrous to argue that the testimony of Martins is somehow crucial in determining who was screaming on the 911 recording to the point that they need to be impeached as witnesses above and beyond what their status as the parents of the victim already impeaches them.

O'Mara supposedly has all this evidence that proves his client acted in self-defense, but he's wasting his time proving that the Martins might have even more of a reason to lie than the fact that they think Zimmerman murdered their child just in case the prosecution forgets to call any actual audio experts?

That makes no sense.

Assuming they get to say anything ....

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/mot_for_evidentiary_hearing.pdf

MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY

From the first thread:

Yes. Ramirez v. Florida articulates Florida's implementation of the Frye test.

The Frye test since has been broken down into a four-step process as outlined by the Florida Supreme Court in Ramirez v. State:

- First, the trial judge must determine whether such expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.

- Second, the trial judge must decide whether the expert‟s testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”

- Third, the trial judge must determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present opinion testimony on the subject in issue.

- Fourth, the judge may then allow the expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise, and it is then up to the jury to determine the credibility of the expert‟s opinion, which it may either accept or reject.

 

[KatieG]

Don't think this is gonna fly, MO'M.

Zimmerman Legal Case ‏@GZlegalCase 2s
MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING in #Zimmerman case. http://ow.ly/kKeFU

PDF
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513...ry_hearing.pdf



And from Leatherman's website:

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013...nnot-prove-defendant-utters-terrified-shriek/

Cries for help: Is it Zimmerman or Trayvon?

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said Tuesday that a 911 call could be the key piece of evidence in the case against George Zimmerman. In the background of the audio recording, you can hear someone screaming for help.

If it’s Zimmerman, O’Mara said it shows that the night watchman was the one under attack “and documents his story completely — it also documents his injuries.” If, however, it’s 17-year-old Trayvon Martin’s voice on the recording, then it could show Zimmerman was “acting in a very aggressive way toward him,” O’Mara said.

So which one is it?

O’Mara told In Session correspondent Jean Casarez that witnesses for the prosecution and the defense can’t seem to agree. So, he wants to have a hearing to decide if anyone should be able to testify about the voice at all.

Should jurors be able to decide for themselves whom they hear on the call?

 

[Cylinder]

Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony

Zimmerman is asking for a Frye hearing regarding the addmisibility of expert opinions rearding any voice ID.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It was claimed by whom? Again they are more than a bit suspect.

I really don't want to have a prolonged discussion about TCH, nor do I really want to be put in a position of 'defending' them. I have no clue what they do on the rest of their website, I only ever look at the TM section.
But I will ask ... what prior factual claims has the CTH made on about the TM case their website, that turned out to be false, that make the site so 'suspect' ?

What they claim is suspect, they have no idea at all, it is not fact, it is vague speculation at best. What exactly does this vague source say is a match? Does it give brands, styles, weight and composition?

There is no evidence presented whatsoever that the items that TM had a school are linked to that local burglary.

I've presented the link, and a summary, so people can be informed about the claim.

It's a bit of a lose/lose situation for me.

If it turns out to be false, then I run the risk of being derided for lending any credence to something posted there.

On the other hand, if it turns out to be true, I won't get any credit, because it will likely be claimed there was no reason to believe it in the first place, it was all 'vague speculation', and no true skeptic should have believed it, etc...

Unless you think 'some dude' on the internet is credible.

It's a bit more than 'some dude' on the Internet. I would think if it were untrue, they would not have put in verifiable details. Maybe you can help me understand what the benefit to the CTH is to lie about what they did, in a manner that can be relatively easily disproven and that can be used to make them look foolish? I don't claim that makes it true, but as I said before, it does seem to lend some credence to the story. And unless you think the jewelry wasn't stolen, it did have to come somewhere ...

 

[johnny karate]

I really don't want to have a prolonged discussion about TCH, nor do I really want to be put in a position of 'defending' them. I have no clue what they do on the rest of their website, I only ever look at the TM section.
But I will ask ... what prior factual claims has the CTH made on about the TM case their website, that turned out to be false, that make the site so 'suspect' ?

No one has to prove your source is not credible.

You have to provide actual evidence for the claim you are presenting.

You haven't done that.

It's a bit of a lose/lose situation for me.

If it turns out to be false, then I run the risk of being derided for lending any credence to something posted there.

On the other hand, if it turns out to be true, I won't get any credit, because it will likely be claimed there was no reason to believe it in the first place, it was all 'vague speculation', and no true skeptic should have believed it, etc...

The simple solution is to not post unsourced claims from a biased website, because maybe whatever "credit" you're looking for isn't really worth it.

It's a bit more than 'some dude' on the Internet. I would think if it were untrue, they would not have put in verifiable details. Maybe you can help me understand what the benefit to the CTH is to lie about what they did, in a manner that can be relatively easily disproven and that can be used to make them look foolish? I don't claim that makes it true, but as I said before, it does seem to lend some credence to the story. And unless you think the jewelry wasn't stolen, it did have to come somewhere ...

Again, no one else has the burden of proof here but you.

We don't have to prove why a biased website might be lying.

It's up to you to prove that their claim you are presenting is true.

 

[Dan O.]

The question you should be asking is: how is this relevant to the night that Trayvon was killed? On that night was Trayvon in possession of any burglary tools? Stollen items? How about even a backpack?


Or, is the claim being made that George Zimmerman has some super ability to smell trouble when all he sees is a kid that looks black walking/standing in the rain.

 

[Bob001]

....
O’Mara told In Session correspondent Jean Casarez that witnesses for the prosecution and the defense can’t seem to agree. So, he wants to have a hearing to decide if anyone should be able to testify about the voice at all.....

Just a question here. Shows like "CSI" frequently portray technicians comparing recordings of, say, a 911 call and a witness or a suspect, usually pointing to waveforms on a screen, and proclaiming decisively that they are the same or different. Is there such science? Is it valid? If there is a recent recording of TM speaking, could it be compared to the tape? Could a recording of GZ be compared to the tape? How reliable would the conclusions be? Or is this just TV magic, like those instant DNA tests?

 

[Megalodon]

It's a bit of a lose/lose situation for me.

If it turns out to be false, then I run the risk of being derided for lending any credence to something posted there.

On the other hand, if it turns out to be true, I won't get any credit, because it will likely be claimed there was no reason to believe it in the first place, it was all 'vague speculation', and no true skeptic should have believed it, etc...

Not really... it's a lost situation for you because you are trying to dig up dirt on a homicide victim, based on something that was evaluated at the proper time by the relevant authorities and never prosecuted. Even if the items were exactly the same (which you failed to demonstrate), TM is dead, thanks to GZ, and thus we will never be able to see him tried. So, for all legal purposes no, TM didn't steal anything, and I'm quite sure the judge will slap down anyone who tries to say so to the jury.

Now, regarding the internal discussion. You fought tooth and nail against the idea that GZ might have assaulted a police officer because only the other officers and the FBI attested to it, and the charges were dropped because he underwent an anger management course, as usual for a first offender.

But somehow your entire doubts and caveats blow away when you hear a rumor of a hint that there might be some evidence if you squint real hard that the kid who got shot might have done something wrong at some time in the past. The same kid you've been attempting to portray as a ghetto thug from a broken home, that actually seems to have been a nice kid from the suburbs that volunteered with his dad and helped out is disabled uncle. Maybe you should revisit your motivations on this case.

I've done worse things than that kid in the past. I was constantly involved in fights in high-school. I destroyed school property, and the school saw fit not to go very hard on me. I am PostDoc in a University now. I have a wife and a kid, a house and a car. I pay my taxes and I'm involved in my community. We'll never know where TM would reach.

 

[Megalodon]

It's a bit more than 'some dude' on the Internet. I would think if it were untrue, they would not have put in verifiable details. Maybe you can help me understand what the benefit to the CTH is to lie about what they did, in a manner that can be relatively easily disproven and that can be used to make them look foolish?

You must be new to the Internet...

People blog falsities all the time! For the lulz; to be the first if it happens to be remotely accurate; unwillingly because they where deceived by their source; willingly, because they know people will not check their sources.

Above all, as I posted above, in legal terms the story is a dead-end. Nobody is going to investigate, and if someone does, nobody can even remotely prove that TM didn't find the items. After all, GZ has placed him beyond interrogation.

This story is just (more) mud-slinging, trying to see if something sticks.

 

[KatieG]

Looks like MO'M is getting desperate. If the defense really thought the voice calling for help was GZ, they'd fight tooth and nail to have it admitted.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE94600120130507

George Zimmerman's lawyer challenges use of voice experts at trial
ORLANDO, Florida | Mon May 6, 2013 8:12pm EDT

(Reuters) - A lawyer for a Florida man charged in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin is asking a judge to bar voice-recognition experts from testifying at his murder trial on grounds their techniques are not scientifically valid.

Prosecutors are expected to call audio experts to testify in the trial of George Zimmerman to analyze a 911 call made during the night when Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, goes on trial June 10 on charges of second-degree murder.

One potential piece of evidence is expected to be a 911 call in which screams for help can be heard in the background during an altercation between Zimmerman and Martin before the shooting.

Zimmerman's family and supporters claim the voice is his, while Martin's parents insist the voice belongs to their son.

Last year, an FBI expert said a voice analysis of the call was inconclusive.

 

[batvette]

You must be new to the Internet...

People blog falsities all the time! For the lulz; to be the first if it happens to be remotely accurate; unwillingly because they where deceived by their source; willingly, because they know people will not check their sources.

Above all, as I posted above, in legal terms the story is a dead-end. Nobody is going to investigate, and if someone does, nobody can even remotely prove that TM didn't find the items. After all, GZ has placed him beyond interrogation.

This story is just (more) mud-slinging, trying to see if something sticks.

Utterly ridiculous, first off the basis for the story's root is a Miami Herald article which details that Trayvon Martin was in fact found with what police investigators determined WAS a burglary tool and a dozen pieces of women's jewelry which he could only say the source of was "a friend" he could not name who "gave it" to him- where are you getting this claim he "found" these items? Why are you casting aspersion on the CTH's credibility when this statement you just made is now the only dubious claim surrounding this issue?
Secondly the story by CTH does not pursue the slander of Martin but instead focuses on the coverup within Miami Dade School District PD regarding crime stats, which results in the victim not being able to recover their property.
You people must have quickly scanned that page and saw your own bias reject any information which contradicted your position because you missed that it provided names of the police officers involved and links to scribd pages with images of the actual police reports and sworn affidavits provided by the officers.
The CTH blogger went far and above the standard of proof used by the mainstream media.
The argument you have used is that you believe the source has bias which contradicts your own, which is of no merit.
You are required to produce evidence which contradicts that which they have provided, and they provided plenty.