Posted on 06/22/2013 9:24:04 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
“In a major blow for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman case, a judge on Saturday barred the testimony of two audio experts who suggested that a taped 911 call indicated Trayvon Martin was crying out for help during the violent struggle that ended with a gunshot,”
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
Women are his peers? really? wow!
are they all black?
Then Z is free. A motion to dismiss for lack of evidence is in order. It was not a good idea to delay ruling on the tape.
The motion to dismiss for lack of evidence comes at the end of the prosecution’s case.
Even if there were no evidence presented, this judge isn’t going to literally put her neck on the line and dismiss the case.
This one is going to the jury.
I heard it 2 or 3 times, and it sounded like a voice that could only belong to an older, more mature man like Zimmerman. Much deeper than a kid’s voice.
I think excellent also. It was meant to have planted an imponderable into the jury’s mind that they would NEVER resolve-—I assume this was the prosecution’s idea , correct?
Trayvon is not there to give a voice sample, but I have no doubt that should Zimmerman be asked to yell the way he did on that tape, it would sound very similar. It will come out in verbal testimony anyway.
Women jurors tend to be Leftists....
Poor Zimmerman is screwed, blued and tatooed!
My guess also.
They are hoping to destroy Zimmerman. The testimony wouldn’t help in that aim.
Where did you find this????
I Googled “Trayvon” went to images and there it was.
At least with Zimmerman, they have a person that they can test with. Maybe an opportunity to say it is or may not be Zim.
They could record him over the same equipment or same type of equipment and drop a live squirrel in his britches. Maybe, that might come close to the elevated pitch you get when you are terrified.
Was that states in the article? (I didn't click the link) One might think that,in the interest of "fairness" that if the judge bars one side from calling a certain type of "expert" the same ban would apply to the other side as well.Unless,perhaps,the judge doubted the expertise of a *particular individual*.They are still available to the defense.
One might think that research has been done at various universities,perhaps even prestigious ones (MIT,Harvard Medical School,etc) on the human voice and voice recognition that could be applied to a matter like this.If my hunch is correct the only thing that might call the "science" into question is if respected researchers have reached substantially different conclusions in their work.I don’t see a great use for them, off the top of my head, but they can be called.
Having listened to a good deal of the expert testimony in the pretrial hearing, I would characterize my own life/work experience as making me at least as knowledgeable as the state’s “experts,” though not nearly as well credentialed as the defense experts - whose testimony makes perfect sense to me, whereas the state’s witnesses were embarrassing, just as the defense witnesses said or strongly implied.
Having read the judge’s finding, linked as follows,The ORDER EXCLUDING THE OPINION TESTIMONY OF MR. OWEN AND DR. REICHI am very pleased by it. The judge dismisses the state’s “experts,” without saying or implying (IMHO) anything negative about those put forward by the defense. The ruling is a slam dunk for the defense. However, the defense experts said that they nor anyone else can tell who was screaming by analyzing the 911 tape. Thus, in the absence of any “expert” testimony from the state, the defense has nothing to gain by putting those witnesses on the stand before the jury - they have achieved the defense’s fondest hopes by convincing the judge not to admit the prosecution’s “experts.” What little might be gained by putting them on would not be worth the money the defense would have to pay them.http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/order_excluding.pdf
32 posted on June 22, 2013 12:56:39 PM EDT by Uncle Chip
I would speculate that the defense lawyers would like to read, or ask the judge to read, enough of the judge’s opinion to help the jury understand the defense’s position - that Zimmerman’s post-fight explanation of the encounter to the police is the truth, and that Zimmerman’s voice is heard on the 911 call, notwithstanding that the defense does not claim that the identity of Zimmerman as the screamer can be confirmed or rebutted by reference to that 911 record.
The police released Zimmerman because, under the evidence they had gleaned, they were required to by the “stand your ground” law. But now that Zimmerman has been put on trial, “stand your ground” is irrelevant to the defense because Zimmerman claims that he had no duty to retreat because he had no ability to retreat. It is not necessary to the defense that all of the screams be from Zimmerman - it is only essential that the jury hold that Zimmerman have understood himself to be in deadly peril and unable to retreat at the moment he fired the shot. In that sense, it is an irrelevancy to have to defend against a prosecution claim that the data proves that Martin was the one screaming. That actually is a political rather than a a legal issue - but, unfortunately, that political issue can have real consequences both in the jury and in the general public.
It seems likely that the prosecution will give Trayvon’s parents the opportunity to claim that they recognize the screams as Trayvon’s voice, but Mr. Martin claimed that that voice was not Trayvon’s, before he realized there was a business opportunity in claiming that it was. Given the defense contention that it is not possible to reliably identify the screamer from analysis of the recorded sound, It’s not clear to me that the defense has anything to gain by putting Zimmerman’s parents on the stand to play “he said, she said” in rebuttal.
There was also one witness who saw TM on top of Zimmerman. And grass stains on Zimmerman’s jacket. And injuries on TM’s knuckles.
The fact that this case is still going forward is a criminal abuse of power.
It's possible to do some pretty amazing things with an uncompressed high-resolution audio recording or--better yet--a set of independent uncompressed high-resolution audio recordings. Detecting the correlations among small details which are too small to be heard directly may allow things which are too faint to be audible in the recordings to be reliably reconstructed. Unfortunately, audio compression techniques used in mobile phones routinely throw out lots of the smaller details without keeping any record that they've done so. Anyone who's used mobile phones much will know that they often distort people's voice in weird ways, so even having someone listen to a recording is not apt to be sufficient for certain identification.
The more fundamental question one should have with the recording is whether the screaming seems more consistent with a person whose head and phase were being battered, or with a person whose fist was being battered. One wouldn't need voice samples of the people in question to make that determination.
Those defense experts could not be used to refute a parent or friend of Martin's who says "I am sure that is him." Their testimony was purely on the issue of whether there is any generally accepted forensic method for comparing the screaming voice on the recording to samples of Zimmerman or Martin. The judge accepted that the prosecution's "experts" were cranks. While the defense theoretically could call their experts, they really no longer have anything about which to testify.
There are several problems the prosecution would have if they were to put Martin's parents on the stand, though:
The ruling was not that "no experts can testify." The ruling (at the risk of over-simplifying) was that the prosecution's proposed witnesses are not actually experts.
As for the defense experts on this topic, they have nothing of value to offer in testimony, so they won't testify. Their testimony was used to convince the court that the prosecution was trying to inject quackery into evidence. Mission accomplished.
It’s pretty clear in this case that the state isn’t looking for justice, it has an agenda.
First time in ages and ages that George has made it to front page here
About time!! might even add about Freakin time
Excellent, yes Georges father said first and very naturally that it was his sons voice.
Only after, much later did the mother of Trayvon Martin say that it was her son.
On that awful CNN HLN they speak as if it was the other way around
Al and Jesse have been making a little noise here and there, but I think this case us starting to scare them and Liberals a bit.
It increasingly looks like Zimmerman may get an acquittal. Which could easily lead to rioting.
Rioting would start in black neighborhoods, right? Up until this point and acquittal will benefit the race hustlers.
Problem is that the rioting will also spread to Hispanic neighborhoods. Then it becomes a REAL mess. Race war between blacks and Hispanics is going to be very very bad for the race hustling business.
Al and Jesse are professionals at this. It’s in their interest to be prudent and restrained.
Yes...they've moved on to a easier and softer target.
A 66 year old white woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.