Page 35 of 69 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 700 of 1362

Thread: Martin/Zimmerman Trial

  1. #681
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    When she was on the stand the defense should have asked her why she threw sweet little Trayvon out of her house.
    You have to see how that can only backfire on the defense. You do not make a mother speak badly of her child. Not to mention she has been coached. The risk outweighs the reward by a wide margin.

  2. #682
    Just to recap: 32green is really a white guy and WCO is really a black guy. Got it.


  3. #683
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'd also love to hear from Doggin why M. Mother is being allowed to testify when she is not a witness, and has no basis for her claim that it's M. voice on the tape when even a professional FBI voice analysis expert said the voices could not be identified?

    So M. past (alleged past) of violence and crime is out, but M. mom tearfully claiming it's defintiely her son on the tape (when that can't be proven) is in?

    Talk about biasing a jury with testimony unsupported by fact being made by an obviously biased "witness".
    Agreed. Not sure how they managed to get this in at all. She would seem entirely biased, not an expert, and can only end up being used to rile the jury's emotions. Puzzling.

  4. #684
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,231
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    You have to see how that can only backfire on the defense. You do not make a mother speak badly of her child. Not to mention she has been coached. The risk outweighs the reward by a wide margin.
    I was being sarcastic. Obviously I can see that would turn the jury against the defense.

  5. #685
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'd also love to hear from Doggin why M. Mother is being allowed to testify when she is not a witness, and has no basis for her claim that it's M. voice on the tape when even a professional FBI voice analysis expert said the voices could not be identified?

    So M. past (alleged past) of violence and crime is out, but M. mom tearfully claiming it's defintiely her son on the tape (when that can't be proven) is in?

    Talk about biasing a jury with testimony unsupported by fact being made by an obviously biased "witness".
    Re-post from weds:

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Pot, this is my friend Kettle. Kettle, this is that great guy iw as telling you about, Pot.....

    Moving on....

    I heard that M. Mother will be testifying today. I find this odd on two fronts, I was wondering what others thought:

    1. She will be testifying specificly regarding M. voice yelling for help on the tape. Something a professional FBI sound analysis expert has claimed was not possible even with augmentation.

    So what qualifies her (the Mom) to testify that it's M. when she would be a clearly biased and unrelaible witness on the topic, lacking in anything that would make her claim valid? And does this then lead to Z. family all testifying they recognize the voice as Z.?
    The expert said you couldn't do a voiceprint to identify it - but that someone who recognizes the voice might be able to. They're putting her up as someone who recognizes the voice.

    2. Z. family was ejected from the courtrom early on, on the basis that they were witnesses who would be testifying. M. family was allowed to stay.

    Now we find out that M. family will be testifying......so how does that work with the earlier ruling? Why the difference in treatement of one possible witness vs. another?
    The question (in terms of excluding witnesses) is whether the testimony they hear will contaminate their memory of the facts. Don't know about what Z's family would testify to, but my guess is it's his conduct before and after, which is the subject of some of the other testimony - hence excluding them. (Not sure what good that does when the case is live-streamed, btw). If all Martin's mom is testifying to is recognizing his voice, there's no facts in the testimony to date that impact what she will say (since she either recognizes it or doesn't).

  6. #686
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Agreed. Not sure how they managed to get this in at all. She would seem entirely biased, not an expert, and can only end up being used to rile the jury's emotions. Puzzling.
    You don't need an expert to say "I recognize this voice". It's something people do every day, without any special expertise. She's competent to testify that based on her knowledge of her son's voice, that sounds like his voice.

    The defense will argue that she misidentified it for the reasons the expert said, and that others think it sounds like Zimmerman - but that's a fact question for the jury, not a basis to prevent her from testifying. Same with any eyewitness identification

  7. #687
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Re-post from weds:



    The expert said you couldn't do a voiceprint to identify it - but that someone who recognizes the voice might be able to. They're putting her up as someone who recognizes the voice.

    The question (in terms of excluding witnesses) is whether the testimony they hear will contaminate their memory of the facts. Don't know about what Z's family would testify to, but my guess is it's his conduct before and after, which is the subject of some of the other testimony - hence excluding them. (Not sure what good that does when the case is live-streamed, btw). If all Martin's mom is testifying to is recognizing his voice, there's no facts in the testimony to date that impact what she will say (since she either recognizes it or doesn't).
    Can the defense create a tape with several voices on it, one of which is Martin's and see if she can pick it out? How do we verify that she can really do this?

  8. #688
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    3,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    I'd also love to hear from Doggin why M. Mother is being allowed to testify when she is not a witness, and has no basis for her claim that it's M. voice on the tape when even a professional FBI voice analysis expert said the voices could not be identified?

    So M. past (alleged past) of violence and crime is out, but M. mom tearfully claiming it's defintiely her son on the tape (when that can't be proven) is in?

    Talk about biasing a jury with testimony unsupported by fact being made by an obviously biased "witness".
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/04...mmerman-trial/

    I wonder if Zimmermans father will also testify that the screams are his son in the tape.

    Trayvon Martin’s mother and brother testified Friday that they heard the unarmed teen screaming for help on 911 calls recorded during a fight he had with George Zimmerman last year before the neighborhood watch volunteer fatally shot him.

    Sybrina Fulton was called to the stand after two weeks and roughly three dozen witnesses in the case. She told jurors that her 17-year-old son can be clearly heard on 911 calls recorded during a fight Martin had with Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012.

    "I heard my son screaming."
    - Sybrina Fulton

    After the audio was played, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked Fulton, "Who do you recognize that to be?" "Trayvon Benjamin Martin," she replied.

    Defense attorney Mark O'Mara suggested during cross-examination that Fulton may have been influenced by others who listened to the 911 call, including relatives and her former husband.

    O'Mara also asked Fulton hypothetically whether she would have to accept it was Zimmerman yelling for help if the screams did not come from her son. O'Mara also asked if she hoped Martin didn't do anything that led to his death. "I heard my son screaming," Fulton said. "I would hope for this to never have happened and he would still be here."

    Earlier Friday, Fulton posted on Twitter: "I pray that God give me the strength to properly represent my angel Trayvon." Trayvon's brother, Jahvaris Fulton, 22, also testified Friday that he recognized Trayvon's voice on the 911 calls. O'Mara then asked Trayvon's older brother why last year he had told a reporter that he wasn't sure if the voice belonged to Martin. "I didn't want to believe it was him," Jahvaris Fulton testified. Zimmerman’s father, in contrast, has said the screams were from his son rather than Martin. The screams are considered to be crucial pieces of evidence because they could determine who was the aggressor in the confrontation. An FBI expert testified earlier in the week that a person familiar with a voice is in the best position to identify it.

    Prosecutors also called Shiping Bao, associate medical examiner for Volusia and Seminole counties, to the witness stand on Friday. Bao, who performed Martin’s autopsy a day after he was fatally shot, testified that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest. The manner of death was a homicide, he said.
    Bao, while reviewed autopsy photographs shown in court, also testified that Martin weighed 158 pounds at the time of his death and had no indication of prior disease before his confrontation with Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s attorneys are expected to begin their case after the prosecution rests. Zimmerman, 29, has pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense.

    On Wednesday, an expert witness testified that none of Zimmerman's DNA was found under the fingernails of Martin, despite defense attempts to portray Zimmerman as only firing his gun in self-defense. Crime lab analyst Anthony Gorgone also testified that two different DNA profiles were found on the pistol grip. One was Zimmerman's but the other could not be identified. However, Gorgone said he was able to determine that it did not match Martin's DNA sequence. Prosecutors spent most of Wednesday's proceedings painting Zimmerman as a police wannabe, amid testimony that featured technological glitches, forensic evidence and a prosecution witness who greeted Zimmerman from the stand.

    Zimmerman faces life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder. The state argued during its opening statement that Zimmerman profiled and followed Martin in his truck and called a police dispatch number before he and the teen got into a fight.

    Fox News' Joshua Rhett Miller, Perry Chiaramonte, Serafin Gomez and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/04...#ixzz2YBQbUJ3c
    Last edited by loluchka80; 07-05-2013 at 11:02 AM.

  9. #689
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    The expert said you couldn't do a voiceprint to identify it - but that someone who recognizes the voice might be able to. They're putting her up as someone who recognizes the voice.
    Which is pure B.S. and WILL pollute the Jury on the issue. A few tears I'm sure will help that along nicely, which she's surely been coached to produce. Emotion, not facts, not evidence. Pure biased B.S.

    The more I know about our justice system, the less faith I have in it to provide justice.

    If Z. is found not guilty, the Mother should then be prosecuted for lyign under oath, because we all know she's lying under oath when she definitively identifies that voice as M.

    In any event, let the social justice railroading continue.

  10. #690
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,474

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Except being "regularly comitted to violence" is relevant when the core of the Defense argument is that the person "committed to violence" that night first. By removing that (hypothetically here, because the Martin case isn't nearly so clear cut) you reduce the Defenses abillity to argue their core defense whilst being permitted to paint him as a wanna-be-Batman out to murder black kids.....all because he once applied to be a cop.

    The precedent this sets is......don't apply to be a cop, because it WILL be used against you in any criminal case later, I don't agree. A failed desire to be a cop nor a desire to help with a Neighborhood Watch, does not IMO speak to motive in "profiling and hunting down a child to murder in cold blood" as is claimed.

    If it DOES speak to that, then every cop in America and every person whose applied (but failed) to become a cop is now instantly a suspect in any crime, because after all, wanting to be a cop is apparently "motive" for hunting down and shooting kids, right?
    Excellent points.

    EVERY cop including your truly was once a "wannabe cop". Are all aspiring police officers racist Tackleberries until proven otherwise?

    As far as the voice ID issue the defense should simply put his Z's father on the stand. His credibility or lack thereof is no greater/worse that T's mother.
    Last edited by PatriotReign; 07-05-2013 at 11:36 AM.

  11. #691
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Which is pure B.S. and WILL pollute the Jury on the issue. A few tears I'm sure will help that along nicely, which she's surely been coached to produce. Emotion, not facts, not evidence. Pure biased B.S.

    The more I know about our justice system, the less faith I have in it to provide justice.

    If Z. is found not guilty, the Mother should then be prosecuted for lyign under oath, because we all know she's lying under oath when she definitively identifies that voice as M.

    In any event, let the social justice railroading continue.
    Well, that's a bit over the top. If the rule is that this is admissible testimony, then so be it. I'm guessing as Lolouchka noted that the defense will produce it's neutralizing witness in Zimmerman's father, who will say it's George's voice. Then we will not know who's lying.

  12. #692
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Can the defense create a tape with several voices on it, one of which is Martin's and see if she can pick it out? How do we verify that she can really do this?
    That's a question for the jury - same as whether they believe any witness.

    But let me ask you - without the expert testimony, would you question whether a mother can recognize her kid's voice?

  13. #693
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    That's a question for the jury - same as whether they believe any witness.

    But let me ask you - without the expert testimony, would you question whether a mother can recognize her kid's voice?
    Absolutely.

    My own Mother can't tell me or my brothers apart over the phone. And thats just normal talking voice, not "about to die screaming in a non-usual way" voice.

    My Mother also couldn't possibly be unbaised in the extreme in such a circumstance.

    The "testimony" for what it is, is utterly worthless in facts, but invaluble in striking an emotional chord with the (all female) Jury.

    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    I'm guessing that the defense will produce it's neutralizing witness in Zimmerman's father, who will say it's George's voice. Then we will not know who's lying.
    Except it's only "neutralizing" if Z. Father is as good at testifying as the mother is.

    Not facts, but how good one or the other may be at lying....since it's highly doubtful either truly recognize it.

    Also assumes the Jurors will be emotionally neutral, and not side with the grieving mother over the trying to save his killer son Father.
    Last edited by Churchill; 07-05-2013 at 12:06 PM.

  14. #694
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    Well, that's a bit over the top. If the rule is that this is admissible testimony, then so be it. I'm guessing as Lolouchka noted that the defense will produce it's neutralizing witness in Zimmerman's father, who will say it's George's voice. Then we will not know who's lying.
    My best guess - neither of them are lying. They both honestly believe they recognize the voice on the tape. One of them is simply wrong.

    Fish - this is why we have juries. What I find funny is the way everyone here is blindly assuming "Expert x said there would be confirmation bias" means "there will be confirmation bias".

  15. #695
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Which is pure B.S. and WILL pollute the Jury on the issue. A few tears I'm sure will help that along nicely, which she's surely been coached to produce. Emotion, not facts, not evidence. Pure biased B.S.

    The more I know about our justice system, the less faith I have in it to provide justice.

    If Z. is found not guilty, the Mother should then be prosecuted for lyign under oath, because we all know she's lying under oath when she definitively identifies that voice as M.

    In any event, let the social justice railroading continue.
    1) You're certain he's innocent?

    2) I'd put all sorts of money on a "Not Guilty" verdict here. The lack of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails is probably the best piece of evidence the prosecution has, but at the end of the day, there's nothing but reasonable doubt here.

  16. #696
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    1) You're certain he's innocent?
    The unemotional facts say he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, aye.

    The emotional "evidence" of testimony might say otherwise.

    2) I'd put all sorts of money on a "Not Guilty" verdict here. The lack of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails is probably the best piece of evidence the prosecution has, but at the end of the day, there's nothing but reasonable doubt here.
    And I'll put equal money (well, maybe not equal, I'm no Lawyer) on the result being a riot of some form by African Americans a la Rodney King.

  17. #697
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    The unemotional facts say he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, aye.

    The emotional "evidence" of testimony might say otherwise.



    And I'll put equal money (well, maybe not equal, I'm no Lawyer) on the result being a riot of some form by African Americans a la Rodney King.
    If you have no faith in juries unless they're all or mostly male, then we have just returned to the dark ages. This whole line of "they're women so they'll be subject to emotion and irrationality" is truly stereotyping of the worst sort (based on what evidence?). The defense had its opportunity to strike witnesses it thought would be unfair or prejudiced. Somehow they let these women serve.

    If people riot it's because they have as little faith in the justice system as you do. They'll just blame the acquittal on a different kind of emotionalism.

  18. #698
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    If you have no faith in juries unless they're all or mostly male, then we have just returned to the dark ages.
    Oh, give it rest.

    This whole line of "they're women so they'll be subject to emotion and irrationality" is truly stereotyping of the worst sort (based on what evidence?).
    It's also accurate. Like many sterotypes.

    If people riot it's because they have as little faith in the justice system as you do.
    No, it's because they're racist professional victims who just can't handle it when their victimhood is questioned or infringed.

    Take a good listen to radio call in shows today, the most common phrase you'll hear black callers making is that discussion of eveidence is "insensitive", i.e. racist, because the ONLY fact that matters is M. was a "kid" or "child" and was killed.

    Like with discussion of crime stats, there is seemingly NO desire to take responsabillity for the actual things done, only a desire to blame everyone and everything else so victims can stay victims, with all that includes.

    Heaven forbid any of these folks admit that M. might have been his own worst enemy that night, by jumping and fighting the wrong guy on thewrong night......nope, it's all "hunted him down for being black".

    What a crock the lot of it
    Last edited by Churchill; 07-05-2013 at 01:12 PM.

  19. #699
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Oh, give it rest.



    It's also accurate. Like many sterotypes.



    No, it's because they're racist professional victims who just can't handle it when their victimhood is questioned or infringed.

    Take a good listen to radio call in shows today, the most common phrase you'll hear black callers making is that discussion of eveidence is "insensitive", i.e. racist, because the ONLY fact that matters is M. was a "kid" or "child" and was killed.

    Like with discussion of crime, there is seemingly NO desire to take responsabillity for the actual things done, only a desire to blame everyone else so victims can stay victims, with all that includes.

    Heaven forbid any of these folks admit that M. might have been his own worst enemy that night, by jumping and fighting the wrong guy on thewrong night......nope, it's all "hunted him down for being black".

    What a crock the lot of it
    There are plenty of people, including a few here, that made their minds up about the case before hearing any evidence at all... I suspect we will hear from a lot of people who aren't interested in the facts if they suggest something different from their prejudices, white or black. That's the truly sad thing here. You won't budge either side no matter what is presented.

    The old joke... a man is convinced he is dead. His doctor asks him, "do dead men bleed?" He replied "Of course not." Doctor pricks his finger and man starts bleeding. "What do you say now?" doctor asks. Man answers: "I guess dead men DO bleed."

    And I really really can't believe you think women can't serve as rational jurors. Guess they shouldn't vote either. Or for that matter lead any organization. Amazing.

  20. #700
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    And I really really can't believe you think women can't serve as rational jurors. Guess they shouldn't vote either. Or for that matter lead any organization. Amazing.
    You can't believe it because I didn't actually say it.

    I said women are more emotional than men in the majority, and they are, as almost every study done on the subject has showed. Women tend to be empathic, emotional thinkers, men more rational, less empathic, more solution-oriented thinkers. Science says this, not me.

    What you've posted is a perfect example of a Straw Man.

    Churchill: All all-women jury might be more suseptible to emotion-based testimoney of a mother who lost her son.

    LiL: YOU HATES TEH WOMENZ!!!! YOU THINK THEZ BELONG IN KITCHEN WIF APRON!!!! YOU SAYZ THEY NO GET VOTE TOO!!! WHAT NEXT, NO ABORTION??? NO BIRFF CONTROLL!!!! WHY YOUZ HATE WOMEN SO MUCH YOU SEXIST MYSOGYNIST!!!!

    The only reply old friend, to such a straw man, is

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us