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

The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if they got both parties to simulate that recording (impossible for M obviously, and Z's lawyers would never allow it for Z). Through walls. Low quality phone. Etc. All that would prove is who was able to simulate it best during the test! Maybe the person that was the real voice lost their voice during the test. Maybe the person that was not the real voice had been practicing! Maybe the simulation was not set up correctly...

Therefore, even a simulation trying to be under the exact same conditions as the night in question wouldn't be anywhere near conclusive.
 
boooeee said:
The odd thing is that, although I am not a voice expert, the person speaking "These shall be", or whatever it is, seems to be much closer to the phone than the person screaming.
Click to expand...


I had always assumed those sounds/words were from a TV.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Agreed. If the State can tie something solid together we will all be surprised. As will Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

What they have is usually pretty solid, though; Accused's gun provably fired the bullet that killed the deceased. Even the accused admits that it was in his hand when it was fired. And there is a body, and evidence saying the accused was at that place at that time.

Honestly you usually don't need a whole lot more.
 
BenBurch said:
What they have is usually pretty solid, though; Accused's gun provably fired the bullet that killed the deceased. Even the accused admits that it was in his hand when it was fired. And there is a body, and evidence saying the accused was at that place at that time.

Honestly you usually don't need a whole lot more.
Click to expand...


They need to catch Z in a huge lie to shed doubt on his self-defense claim. Even hundreds of little lies probably won't work.

For instance, if they can prove that Z had the gun out way before Z says the gun came into play then Z has a huge problem. They might be able to prove that from the audio or from the CC video from the complex (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember CC video being entered into evidence).
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
They need to catch Z in a huge lie to shed doubt on his self-defense claim. Even hundreds of little lies probably won't work.

For instance, if they can prove that Z had the gun out way before Z says the gun came into play then Z has a huge problem. They might be able to prove that from the audio or from the CC video from the complex (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember CC video being entered into evidence).
Click to expand...

The entire incident would have been videotaped if the cameras would have been maintained. The only video that captured any of the area involved was from inside the clubhouse which really don't have any signifigance. You can see reflected headlights.

Of course, if Zimmerman had his firearm out before the altercation then that's a material discrepancy - there's no way out of that lie, IMHO.
 
Cylinder said:
Just to correct the earlier misstatement, Zimmerman has already filed a motion to add its own expert witnesses to his list.
Click to expand...


The title of that motion clearly says "video expert". And I don't see anything in the motion about the experts credentials at all.

It also says that it pertains to "the Frye hearing issue regarding voice identification".

Key words being "the Frye hearing issue".

What you have there are experts that will try and debunk voice analysis entirely.

So, no, that does necessarily "correct" anything about the claim that Z has not presented experts that say "who was screaming".

No one doubted that they would try and debunk the audio claims...
 
Cylinder said:
The entire incident would have been videotaped if the cameras would have been maintained. The only video that captured any of the area involved was from inside the clubhouse which really don't have any signifigance. You can see reflected headlights.
Click to expand...


All right. Thanks for the info. That would just leave the audio then I assume.


Cylinder said:
Of course, if Zimmerman had his firearm out before the altercation then that's a material discrepancy - there's no way out of that lie, IMHO.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

ETA: If that happens, the defense would have to come up with a very good and convincing reason why Z lied about that. I could imagine them succeding with that only if the jury is very favorable to the defense. But, as you said, there's very likely no way out of something like that.
 
Last edited:
OnlyTellsTruths said:
The title of that motion clearly says "video expert". And I don't see anything in the motion about the experts credentials at all.
Click to expand...

The text of the motion references voice identification experts. The filename is probably an artifact from a template.
 
For those interested, the other pending issue is Zimmerman's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Zimmerman is asking the district court to reverse the trial court's order denying his request to take deposition testimony from Benjamin Crump, the Martin family attorney. Crump was the first person to interview Witness 8, the girl who was on the phone with Martin in the moments before the altercation.

For the appellate court to intervene, they would have to find that Nelson's order was in error and that error would cause harm that could not be remedied in a post-conviction appeal. The court should render its opinion soon - hopefully this week.
 
Folks...this thread is for discussion of the trail, there is a thread for the pre-trial discussion (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256374). Off-topic posts for this thread will be culled, infracted, etc.

ETA: Posts that were culled can be found here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258992

If you feel a post was wrongly moved (or should be moved) you are welcome to PM me, post a question in FM Questions, or file an Appeal.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited:
Locknar said:
Folks...this thread is for discussion of the trail, there is a thread for the pre-trial discussion (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256374). Off-topic posts for this thread will be culled, infracted, etc.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
Click to expand...

Thanks!

I did understand I was NOT a mod and I was perhaps an annoying thread nanny. I've been annoying many times in my life, both to myself and to others :D
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify the rules of this thread. Is discussion of the voice analysis evidence considered on-topic? Or should that be taken to the moderated thread?
 
boooeee said:
Just to clarify the rules of this thread. Is discussion of the voice analysis evidence considered on-topic? Or should that be taken to the moderated thread?
Click to expand...

Unless there is a filing or motion or actual testimony about it in the course of the trial, moderated thread only. And if there IS a something like that about it, only discussion of the filing or motion or testimony.
 
BenBurch said:
Unless there is a filing or motion or actual testimony about it in the course of the trial, moderated thread only. And if there IS a something like that about it, only discussion of the filing or motion or testimony.
Click to expand...

There is a filing about it, which is why I brought it up.

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

The state's expert filed his report which can be read here:

http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/201...ce-Communication-Associaites-voice-report.pdf
 
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