Trayvon Martin case: All female jury picked---Verdict Not Guilty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So none of you are reading any news stories of any kind in regards to this story? Just watching testimony without any commentary at all?

Color me surprised.

Only in looking for factual wording, from the testimony. I haven't read a single op-ed piece on the matter since the trial started.

Edit: Granted, I don't read to many op-ed's on anything now a days.

Of course that also assumes that only op-ed pieces contain a bias or personal opinion, and that written news that are not op-eds are free from any bias or personal agendas.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Of course that also assumes that only op-ed pieces contain a bias or personal opinion, and that written news that are not op-eds are free from any bias or personal agendas.

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? You seem to be saying that if someone thought that the media whipping up a circus around an apparent non-crime by deliberately creating an extraordinarily misleading impression on the public for the purposes of encouraging a political prosecution, they shouldn't consume any coverage of the resulting trial whatsoever.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Of course that also assumes that only op-ed pieces contain a bias or personal opinion, and that written news that are not op-eds are free from any bias or personal agendas.

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? You seem to be saying that if someone thought that the media whipping up a circus around an apparent non-crime by deliberately creating an extraordinarily misleading impression on the public for the purposes of encouraging a political prosecution, they shouldn't consume any coverage of the resulting trial whatsoever.

And you seem to say that media is good if it reports something something that you support or reports something that you share an opinion with, but that they are whipping up a circus if they are reporting something that you don't agree with.

But then debating anything with you is pointless, so why bother.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Of course that also assumes that only op-ed pieces contain a bias or personal opinion, and that written news that are not op-eds are free from any bias or personal agendas.

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? You seem to be saying that if someone thought that the media whipping up a circus around an apparent non-crime by deliberately creating an extraordinarily misleading impression on the public for the purposes of encouraging a political prosecution, they shouldn't consume any coverage of the resulting trial whatsoever.

And you seem to say that media is good if it reports something something that you support or reports something that you share an opinion with, but that they are whipping up a circus if they are reporting something that you don't agree with.

But then debating anything with you is pointless, so why bother.

Wait... isn't that's what we're all guilty of?

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
And you seem to say that media is good if it reports something something that you support or reports something that you share an opinion with, but that they are whipping up a circus if they are reporting something that you don't agree with.

But then debating anything with you is pointless, so why bother.

Why bother indeed, if you're simply going to outright make stuff up. I don't think I've once in this thread suggested the media has played a remotely positive role in any of this, even now.

**Jihadin**

You mean like all those news stories that tried to make this out to be a race hate crime at the start, and had edited recordings of 911 calls?

SHOCKED...I AM TOTALY SHOCKED THAT SOME NEWS AGENCY WOULD DO THAT FOR RATING'S....SHOCKED I SAY

wonder what's in store for us tomorrow..

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
You mean like all those news stories that tried to make this out to be a race hate crime at the start, and had edited recordings of 911 calls?

SHOCKED...I AM TOTALY SHOCKED THAT SOME NEWS AGENCY WOULD DO THAT FOR RATING'S....SHOCKED I SAY

wonder what's in store for us tomorrow..

That and the Texas thingy...

And, more IRS stuff...

If there's bad news, you'd want it out next week due to everyone being on vacation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So he could have ran home, but instead decided to beat Z?

Well... here's a map based on the info we have..

**djones520**

I saw they had a voice analysis expert as a witness today. What was up with that, I thought the judge ruled they weren't allowed to do that?

**Rented Tritium**

djones520 wrote:
They won't. They'll go after him in civil court. While marching alongside Jesse Jackson.

They actually might have a decent civil case. If Z's actions negligently led to a series of events that led to reasonable self defense, he might bear some fraction of the responsibility. Remember that civil court can still find for a plaintiff for partial responsibility and a partial judgement, even if someone was only 20% responsible or what have you. As long as the actions were sufficiently negligent, even a small fraction of the blame will be worth a bit of money.

Basically, even if not "guilty", it can be "his fault".

**Seaward**

I thought that as well.

Perhaps it's simply someone having to do with Zimmerman's voice stress analysis after his arrest, though why the prosecution would want to bring that up is beyond me.

**djones520**

Seaward wrote:
I thought that as well.

Perhaps it's simply someone having to do with Zimmerman's voice stress analysis after his arrest, though why the prosecution would want to bring that up is beyond me.

I'm in a differant work center today, so can't get audio on the trial. The footnotes I saw though said he was referring to the audio recordings from the 911 calls. But he was also saying it was impossible to make any judgement from them.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
I thought that as well.

Perhaps it's simply someone having to do with Zimmerman's voice stress analysis after his arrest, though why the prosecution would want to bring that up is beyond me.

I'm in a differant work center today, so can't get audio on the trial. The footnotes I saw though said he was referring to the audio recordings from the 911 calls. But he was also saying it was impossible to make any judgement from them.

If the expert is saying it's impossible, why the hell the prosecutor putting him on the stand?

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
If the expert is saying it's impossible, why the hell the prosecutor putting him on the stand?

Because he has nothing to lose at this stage?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-audio-expert-testifies-zimmerman-trial-135016429.html

SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — An FBI audio expert whose pretrial testimony helped keep prosecution witnesses from testifying at George Zimmerman's murder trial took the stand Monday and said a person who is familiar with a voice on a recording has a better chance of identifying it.

Prosecutors called FBI expert Hirotaka Nakasone to focus on the issue of who was screaming for help on 911 calls during the confrontation that ended with the neighborhood watch volunteer fatally shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Jurors were played the 911 calls several times last week.

The recordings are crucial pieces of evidence because they could determine who the aggressor was in the confrontation. Martin's family contends it was the teen screaming, while Zimmerman's father has said it was his son.

Even though he was a pre-trial witness for the defense, prosecutors called Nakasone to set up later testimony from either the teen's mother or father that they believe it was their son yelling for help.

During his pre-trial testimony, Nakasone testified that there wasn't enough clear sound to determine whether Zimmerman or Martin was screaming on the best 911 sample, an assertion he repeated Monday.

"It's not fit for the purpose of voice comparison," Nakasone said.

Nakasone also said guessing a person's age by voice is "complicated" in general, and it was impossible to determine with the 911 sample he heard.

The FBI expert said that it's easier for a person with a familiarity of a voice to identify it than someone who has never heard it previously. That is especially true if the recording is of a subject screaming and the person trying to identify the voice has heard the subject under similarly stressful circumstances previously, Nakasone said.

But under cross-examination by defense attorney Don West, Nakasone said there was a risk of increased listener bias if people trying to identify a voice are listening to a sample in a group, as Martin's parents did, rather than individually.

"There might be a risk of bias included in the end results," Nakasone said.

Nakasone's pretrial testimony, along with other defense experts, helped keep two prosecution audio experts from testifying. One prosecution expert ruled out that it was Zimmerman screaming on the 911 call and the other thought it was the teen.

Judge Debra Nelson ruled that the methods used by the experts aren't reliable. Her ruling didn't prevent the 911 calls from being played at trial.

More than 20 witnesses last week testified during the opening week of a testimony in a trial that has opened up national debates about race, equal justice, self-defense and gun control.

Zimmerman has said he fatally shot the teen in February 2012 in self-defense as the Miami-area black teenager was banging his head into the concrete sidewalk behind the townhomes in a gated community. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder and has pleaded not guilty.

Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara said at the end of last week that the trial was progressing at a faster pace than anticipated, but that he was reserving judgment on the prosecution's case so far.

"We're in the middle of it. They've got a lot more to show. These things build up slow, and it's sort of like pieces of a puzzle," O'Mara said. "People say, 'wait a minute, I can't see the picture yet.' They're very good prosecutors, they're gonna do very good job, and they're gonna put on their evidence. We'll see how it goes. We're certainly ready to respond to it."

Zimmerman, 29, could get 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.

Zimmerman has denied the confrontation had anything to do with race, as Martin's family and their supporters have claimed.

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
I thought that as well.

Perhaps it's simply someone having to do with Zimmerman's voice stress analysis after his arrest, though why the prosecution would want to bring that up is beyond me.

I'm in a differant work center today, so can't get audio on the trial. The footnotes I saw though said he was referring to the audio recordings from the 911 calls. But he was also saying it was impossible to make any judgement from them.

If the expert is saying it's impossible, why the hell the prosecutor putting him on the stand?

because the defense will. The same reason as the other witnesses. If the prosecution doesn't put them up it looks like the prosecution is hiding something.

**hotsauceman1**

Am i the only one thinking the prosecution is shooting themselve in the foot with each witness?
For Jeantel, who lied on stand and gave unclear statements, then refused to come back the following day.
The the witness that proved it was M ontop of Z beating him up.
Now the audio expert that said it is unclear who is screaming

**djones520**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Am i the only one thinking the prosecution is shooting themselve in the foot with each witness?
For Jeantel, who lied on stand and gave unclear statements, then refused to come back the following day.
The the witness that proved it was M ontop of Z beating him up.
Now the audio expert that said it is unclear who is screaming

No, that seems to be the general thinking for most.

My stance on this isn't that the prosecution isn't screwing the pooch. They're trying to make the best of an impossible situation. Remember originally the DA for the county this happened in didn't want to try the case. Then all of the political pressure came down, and the venue got changed, and this new DA was basically ordered to do this. He didn't really have a choice in the matter.

**Dreadclaw69**

Didn't Trayvon's father say that the screaming wasn't his son's voice when he first heard the recording?

**Frazzled**

No, the other way.

**Seaward**

Frazzled wrote:
No, the other way.

Nah, he's got it right. On first hearing it, Tracy Martin said it wasn't Trayvon. Then he heard an enhanced version and said yup, definitely Trayvon.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
No, the other way.

Nah, he's got it right. On first hearing it, Tracy Martin said it wasn't Trayvon. Then he heard an enhanced version and said yup, definitely Trayvon.

Ah my bad.

**Seaward**

The prosecution displayed Zimmerman's driver's license and social security numbers on one of their slides.

I'm getting more and more suspicious that this is all just a brilliant new reality-comedy series.

**Jihadin**

Think Martin family has a better chance of more money suing prosecution instead of wrongful death against Z

**djones520**

Seaward wrote:
The prosecution displayed Zimmerman's driver's license and social security numbers on one of their slides.

I'm getting more and more suspicious that this is all just a brilliant new reality-comedy series.

They seriously just posted all the PII for the whole world to see???

**MrDwhitey**

Why would they do that?

**kronk**

Well then, I just saved a bunch of money by using a Credit Card in Z's name!

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
Seaward wrote:
The prosecution displayed Zimmerman's driver's license and social security numbers on one of their slides.

I'm getting more and more suspicious that this is all just a brilliant new reality-comedy series.

They seriously just posted all the PII for the whole world to see???

Yeah, because there is no chance of anyone misusing that information, right?......

**Jihadin**

Check to see if its on the internet.....if its on the internet then its a free for all on CC's

**Seaward**

It's on the internet. This version has been redacted by the folks who posted it, but it went out live non-redacted.

**Dreadclaw69**

Seaward wrote:
It's on the internet. This version has been redacted by the folks who posted it, but it went out live non-redacted.

I hope that the Prosecution had a very good (and lawful) reason for that.

**Jihadin**

F'ing Priceless with Prosecution