Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Skeptic Tank]

I'd also like to say that I find it extremely telling how early on the first iteration of findings which surfaced from Owen, Primeau, and Reich were. I'm not entirely clear on the timing of Reich's wading into this, in the Wall Street Journal or whatever it was... but I do know Owen and Primeau waded in PRIOR to any injury photos of Zimmerman coming out.

Also it was at a time when the narrative in the media was much more one-sided and fact-starved.

I personally do not believe Owen or Primeau would have said they were certain it wasn't Zimmerman if those injury photos had been known to them, and I also think seeing more recent, less family-friendly images of Trayvon which were either not available, or not widely seen at that time... would have impacted their findings as well.

Of course, I can't be certain of this. With Reich, it is really quite clear to any honest person that the narrative heavily influenced what he thought he heard. I don't think that can be disputed.

Those who seek to cling to the sinking ship of their findings should at least entertain these considerations and further, the consideration that these experts are now "bought in" to defending their earlier proclamations. When you're seeking to tout your expertise and/or the efficacy of your software, and have already received large sums of money from the state and possibly various media outlets which were tied to those particular findings, it becomes difficult for all but the most honest to issue a retraction - calling down upon themselves a heap of mockery, possibly reduced inclination for anyone to utilize their services or purchase their software again... etc.

This is why I've said from the outset that the professional thing for these gentlemen to have told the Orlando Sentinel, any other media, and the state of Florida, was that it was a comparison which was beyond their science's capabilities.

 

[KatieG]

They either hear what they think they hear or they don't. Pictures of GZ or TM shouldn't have any influence on what they hear. Visuals are irrelevant.

Frankly, I don't think the prosecution witnesses or the defense witnesses covered themselves with glory in the hearings this week. I don't think any of this audio technology should be used in this trial. As I've said before, I think it's a work in progress but not ready yet.

Since this is mostly our opinions, it probably belongs in the other thread.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

They either hear what they think they hear or they don't. Pictures of GZ or TM shouldn't have any influence on what they hear. Visuals are irrelevant.

Shouldn't, but do.

Moreso the narrative, but the picture is a big part of it. Just look at Mary Cutcher. Pictures on TV influenced what she thought she heard. Same with her roommate Selma, and the media made John doubt what he'd seen too.

Tom Owen and Ed Primeau and Alan Reich aren't immune.

I would think on this website of all websites, the concept of confirmation bias and suggestibility, etc would be old hat.

 

[squealpiggy]

LOL that people here on a critical thinking board are jumping on the voice expert snake oil. Might as well have Sylvia Browne testify, she'd be just as credible.

That might be a good gambit for the defense. She'd probably say that Trayvon was still alive! And "near water" as she usually does...

Trayvon Martin couldn't have had a reputation for violence since Zimmerman never met him before, and he knew EVERYONE is his complex (just not the name of the street) and could not have known anything about him.

From the post you quoted:

"To utilize this exception, "the defendant's prior knowledge of the victim's reputation is not necessary." Smith v. State,606 So.2d 641, 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)"

 

[Dancing David]

This space for rent

 

[johnny karate]

From the other thread:

Shouldn't, but do.

Moreso the narrative, but the picture is a big part of it. Just look at Mary Cutcher. Pictures on TV influenced what she thought she heard. Same with her roommate Selma, and the media made John doubt what he'd seen too.

Tom Owen and Ed Primeau and Alan Reich aren't immune.

I would think on this website of all websites, the concept of confirmation bias and suggestibility, etc would be old hat.

So I'm having a little trouble following the logic in this conspiracy theory, and was hoping you could help me sort it out.

You're saying that several witnesses were influenced by the media to make claims that are untrue, and that if they only knew the "truth" they might not have made those claims.

However, that "truth" (as pertains to Zimmerman's injuries) has been revealed. Over a year ago. So I'm wondering how these people who are so easily influenced by media reports weren't influenced by the media reports depicting Zimmerman's injuries, and decided to stick with their untrue claims for over a year, and even testify to them in a courtroom?

Were those initial media reports perhaps insidiously encoded with some kind of powerful subliminal message?

Is there a trigger word that only Angela Corey knows that would release them from their hypnotic trance?

Or are these people just so bereft of integrity and conscious that they would condemn an innocent man to prison rather than admit they are lying or wrong?

 

[KatieG]

Again, opinions about some of this really belong on the other thread. The mods are keeping an eye on this thread and will move posts that are not on topic.

 

[Bob001]

The 911 tapes have gotten quite a bit of play on the news this weekend. Here's a question: If that's George screaming for help, why do the screams stop the instant the shot is fired? Wouldn't it be likely that George would keep screaming things like "Call the police!," "Call an ambulance!," "I'm hurt, I need help!" etc., etc. After all, he's outside houses with the lights on. Wouldn't he pound on the nearest door and scream "Call 911!" Instead, IIRC, he waited for the police, and the first thing he said was (paraphrasing) "My weapon is holstered on my belt. I shot the subject because I was in fear for my life." Does that sound like someone who was screaming in terror seconds earlier?

 

[Unabogie]

Another interesting tidbit about that last evidence drop from the prosecution is that they had the original application from George to attend the fight training. In that application, George listed his weight at 255lbs and specifically stated that his intent was to learn fighting skills for his career in law enforcement. And then you can see that over the next two years, he dropped over 50lbs and was still actively training.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/states_17_discovery_redacted_exhibits_redacted.pdf

The reason I find this so interesting is that a lot of people have tried to portray George as being "out of shape" vs the "athlete" that he murdered. When in fact, Trayvon was not participating in any sports at all while the defendant was training, successfully based on his dramatic weight loss, at a gym specializing in fighting skills.

This is going to be very effective in convicting him, as it'll be hard for the trained fighter to claim that even though he outweighed his victim, even though he worked as a bouncer, even though he trained at a fight gym, even though he was ARMED, he was so scared that within 40 seconds he went from chasing the "suspect" to scared for his very life.

 

[KatieG]

Watching the proceedings so far, I think GZ would be better served to let MO'M do the talking, both questioning and speaking to the court. Something about West appears to be a bit abrasive and he doesn't track well.

 

[Cylinder]

Here's a question: If that's George screaming for help, why do the screams stop the instant the shot is fired? Wouldn't it be likely that George would keep screaming things like "Call the police!," "Call an ambulance!," "I'm hurt, I need help!" etc., etc.

Why would you expect him to continue to scream after the threat was removed? Zimemrman was aware that the police were en route. By the time he was secure in the fact that the threat had passed, civilian help had already arrived.

After all, he's outside houses with the lights on. Wouldn't he pound on the nearest door and scream "Call 911!"

The only light that was on - W6 - had already announced his intention to call 911. Zimmerman had just gotten of the phone with NEN and made arrangements to meet the dispatched officer.

Instead, IIRC, he waited for the police, and the first thing he said was (paraphrasing) "My weapon is holstered on my belt. I shot the subject because I was in fear for my life." Does that sound like someone who was screaming in terror seconds earlier?

Zimmerman did not wait outside and alone for the police to arrive and it was not 10 seconds between the fatal shot and the arrival of Ofc. Smith.

 

[WildCat]

That this sentence:


... was followed by this sentence:


... is simply stunning.

You've never heard what people sound like when they're running? That's the only way you could find that statement "simply stunning". Unless Zimmerman is in the physical shape of a marathon runner... which I think we can rule out.

I'm pretty certain the prosecution won't be claiming Zimmerman was running during that recording.

Shades of the wind noise on some 9/11 videos called "explosions" by 9/11 truthers. I guess wind noise is whatever you want it to be.

 

[WildCat]

One thing that none of the experts heard, prosecution or defense, was "you're gonna die tonight, ************".

In George's telling, just after he "felt" that Trayvon had seen his gun, the victim said "you're gonna die tonight, ************", and that's when George grabbed his gun and shot him.

Yet that moment is clearly covered by the 911 tape at issue, and though all of the witnesses can hear "help me", none of them hear this phrase from Trayvon. One of them does hear "I'm begging you" coming from Trayvon, but again, no one hears the shocking declaration of intent to murder that George claimed.

Especially since even laymen can hear both of their voices, shouldn't this be audible as well if actually happened?

Wow, it's almost like the recording is of too poor of quality to discern much of anything. Which is what I've been saying all along. It's the super-human voice "experts" hired by the prosecution who claim to hear distinct phrases. They might as well hire EVP "experts" to go to the scene and talk to Martin directly, it's every bit as scientific.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

From the other thread:


You apparently don't have a very high opinion of Judge Nelson.

Do you disagree with all her rulings, or just the ones that don't favor Zimmerman?

Were her for-the-prosecution or her for-the-defense rulings overturned ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

From the other thread:


No, they couldn't have:


If the defense had an expert willing to testify that the screams were Zimmerman's, they put him or her on the stand.

But they don't, so they can't.

And I find it utterly hilarious that it's the prosecution accused of being unethical, when so far we've seen from the defense:

• A deception to hide Zimmerman's finances from the court to get a lower bond

• A release of irrelevant evidence damaging to the victim's reputation on O'Mara's website

• A blatant misrepresentation of evidence in open court that, once again, damages the reputation of the victim

It would be refreshing if one of Zimmerman's defenders would actually provide some kind of evidence that the prosecution is being unethical instead of just repeatedly asserting it.
Because that song and dance - which has been ongoing since the probable cause affidavit was ignorantly labeled unethical - is getting tiresome.

Meanwhile, the defense files fraudulent documents with the court, and proclaims admitted falsehoods in court, and Zimmerman's defenders don't bat an eye.

There was a whole hearing on that, with the state IT guy, etc. Perhaps you missed it ?

I know, you will now fall back on asking me to show the judges ruling...

 

[phonebook]

You're saying that several witnesses were influenced by the media to make claims that are untrue, and that if they only knew the "truth" they might not have made those claims.

I believe he is saying that what they saw in the media influenced their perception of what they saw, perhaps causing them to lean towards a specific way in regards to anything they were on the fence about.

However, that "truth" (as pertains to Zimmerman's injuries) has been revealed. Over a year ago. So I'm wondering how these people who are so easily influenced by media reports weren't influenced by the media reports depicting Zimmerman's injuries, and decided to stick with their untrue claims for over a year, and even testify to them in a courtroom?

Are you referring to the audio experts? Are you intentionally vague to leave yourself an out? Anyway... the audio experts have their credibility on the line, and that directly relates to their respective livelihoods. If they can't show absolute confidence in their results/opinions, why should potential customers?

People tend to pick a side in these sorts of things and continue to bury their heels, deeper and deeper, and these audio experts are not exempt to that fact (in addition to the other things I mentioned influencing that). How frequently have you seen those on this forum switch sides? People are reluctant to consider their initial assessment of a situation was flawed or inappropriately concluded.

Were those initial media reports perhaps insidiously encoded with some kind of powerful subliminal message?

No, but they were exceedingly one-sided.

Or are these people just so bereft of integrity and conscious that they would condemn an innocent man to prison rather than admit they are lying or wrong?

It's an internal conflict. The thing about this case is there are a lot of unknowns, or situations where you have to put faith into the word of the accused, and the accused is inherently looked upon as worthy of the accusations against him. There isn't a lot of "smoking gun" type evidence, for either "side" to overcome those initial anchors.

 

[johnny karate]

You've never heard what people sound like when they're running? That's the only way you could find that statement "simply stunning".

No, I find it "simply stunning" because you are assuming Zimmerman was not running without knowing he was not running in the very same post you berated others for making assumptions.

We do not know as a matter of fact whether or not Zimmerman was running, so to make an assertion either way is an assumption, and I find it "simply stunning" that someone would think their assumption somehow has more validity than someone else's assumption.

Hope that clears its up for you.

 

[johnny karate]

Were her for-the-prosecution or her for-the-defense rulings overturned ?

Neither.

 

[johnny karate]

There was a whole hearing on that, with the state IT guy, etc. Perhaps you missed it ?

I know, you will now fall back on asking me to show the judges ruling...

No, but what I will fall back on is that there has been no determination that de la Rionda was lying. Only people accusing him of lying.

Surely, you must see the difference?

But again, that same old double standard is at play.

Shellie Zimmerman and Mark O'Mara say things that are demonstrably untrue: Not liars.

Someone merely accuses de la Rionda of lying: He's a liar.

The bar set for de la Rionda is so much lower, it's laughable.

 

[KatieG]

I believe he is saying that what they saw in the media influenced their perception of what they saw, perhaps causing them to lean towards a specific way in regards to anything they were on the fence about.



Are you referring to the audio experts? Are you intentionally vague to leave yourself an out? Anyway... the audio experts have their credibility on the line, and that directly relates to their respective livelihoods. If they can't show absolute confidence in their results/opinions, why should potential customers?

People tend to pick a side in these sorts of things and continue to bury their heels, deeper and deeper, and these audio experts are not exempt to that fact (in addition to the other things I mentioned influencing that). How frequently have you seen those on this forum switch sides? People are reluctant to consider their initial assessment of a situation was flawed or inappropriately concluded.



No, but they were exceedingly one-sided.



It's an internal conflict. The thing about this case is there are a lot of unknowns, or situations where you have to put faith into the word of the accused, and the accused is inherently looked upon as worthy of the accusations against him. There isn't a lot of "smoking gun" type evidence, for either "side" to overcome those initial anchors.

I find the ideas put forth here very insulting. I'm more than capable of evaluating a situation and adjusting. I have no vested interest in this trial. I don't know either of the families nor will I ever meet them. The sun will continue to rise in the east and set in the west, regardless of this verdict. What most of us wanted was more than a cursory investigation. That because a young man was shot and killed, perhaps a real investigation should have taken place. Change the players and I still believe the same thing.

Right now we have voice experts, some who hear specific voices, some who hear something but are unable to determine to a degree of certainty what's being said, and one witness who apparently hadn't bothered to listen to the tape at all. So leave voice recognition out of this trial. It isn't the benchmark for truth in this trial.

I honestly think O'Mara is the better speaker and could connect with jurors and witnesses better than West. The state is stuck with who they got. They'd best make good use of them.

I think Judge Nelson is smart to take her time at this point and leave nothing for appeal at a later date.