Police Gave George Zimmerman Voice Stress Test

Reuters ^ | April 6, 2012 | Stephanie Rabiner, Esq.

[2ndDivisionVet]

George Zimmerman's defense team is growing, suggesting that he's planning for a grand jury indictment and a subsequent criminal trial. Interestingly, his new attorney has begun releasing some previously unknown facts.

Did you know that, on the night of Trayvon Martin's death, Sanford police gave George Zimmerman a voice stress test?

They did, and the results probably contributed to his release.

A voice stress test is like a polygraph, but instead of measuring heart rate and blood pressure, it looks for changes in an individual's voice patterns that are thought to suggest psychological stress. With the help of software, investigators record a suspect answering baseline questions and then compare them to answers about the case.

This technology is not unique to Sanford. The National Institute for Truth Verification, a manufacturer of the technology, claims that over 1,800 local, state and federal law enforcement agencies use their product. They also claim to have trained U.S. Military personnel....

[BushCountry]

The evidence supports Zimmerman’s story or he would have been arrested on the spot. Again, physical evidence of a broken nose, bloody head and grass stains point to self defense. An eyewitness stated that he seen Zimmerman’s head being pounded into the ground. Voice stress analysis, screams for help, no indication of racial profiling, the person that was shot was bad news... Druggie, abusive towards females classmates (his tweets are disgusting), took a swing at a bus driver, wearing a hood and walking around buildings, tats, gold teeth, having stolen property, suspensions, etc... Yet, Zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent. That is nuts!

[wtc911]

Without an eye-witness you do not know what happened at all. All you have is conjecture. And that door swings both ways.

It is pathetic that the standard for truth on FR has become...

"Prove it didn't happen --- if you can't, it must be true."

[BushCountry]

This is insane, just about every case before a jury is conjecture and circumstantial. Zimmerman is innocent until proven otherwise. There is circumstantial and physical evidence, plenty of it that points to his innocence. None of it points to his guilt. If it went to a court of law with no new evidence (as it stands now), Zimmerman would walk, no if ands or buts. Everything presented points to his innocence.

[wtc911]

Sorry but there is nothing that points to his innocence. Losing a fight is not proof that he was attacked. Lots of fights end with the guy who started it getting his ass kicked.

Following martin does not point to zimmerman's innocence. Nobody has come forward to say that he saw zimmerman returning to his truck.

And, if anything that we do know points to innocence, it is martin running away from zimmerman.

I'm not saying and have not said that I know who is innocent or guilty...I don't. But I do know that there is no actual evidence or eyewitness statement that says martin attacked zimmerman. That whole theory is based strictly on the reported fact that Zimmerman was losing the fight.

It used to be that conservatives prided ourselves on seeking the truth no matter how ugly it might be. That concept has gone out the window here on this.

[rolling_stone]

Sorry but there is nothing that points to his innocence.

Umm Innocent until proven guilty, most conservatives know, understand and believe that.

Losing a fight is not proof that he was attacked. Lots of fights end with the guy who started it getting his ass kicked.

So what?

Following martin does not point to zimmerman's innocence. Nobody has come forward to say that he saw zimmerman returning to his truck.

Following a suspicous person does not point to guilt. Whether he returned to his truck or not does not show who started the confrontation.

And, if anything that we do know points to innocence, it is martin running away from zimmerman.

Really? Maybe he ran to get Martin to follow him so he could blindside him.

I'm not saying and have not said that I know who is innocent or guilty...I don't. But I do know that there is no actual evidence or eyewitness statement that says martin attacked zimmerman. That whole theory is based strictly on the reported fact that Zimmerman was losing the fight.

Whole theory? maybe yours not mine. So IF you start a fight and someone is beating you to death YOU will just let them? If they see you have a weapon and try and take it from you and threaten to kill you its ok because you (unlikely) started the fight? Why would you start a fight when you already called police and knew they were on the way? They might have been close enough to see you start the fight -you want us to believe Zimmerman is that stupid? Would you start a fight knowing the police were on their way? Why, what ws to be gained?

It used to be that conservatives prided ourselves on seeking the truth no matter how ugly it might be. That concept has gone out the window here on this.

No it has gone out your window that has blinds on it and tinted glass and you can only see what you want to.

[wtc911]

Not a single word you wrote points to anything that proves martin attacked zimmerman ---

And, to quote you,

"Whether he returned to his truck or not does not show who started the confrontation."

Neither does anything else that anyone has written here --- thank you for proving my point.

[rolling_stone]

your point is only one of many things to consider, unproven does not mean it did not happen..but you know that...
sorry to see you wont anser my questions..

[wtc911]

Umm Innocent until proven guilty...

_______________________

Ummm yourself --- the concept is "presumed" innocent until proven guilty.

Was OJ innocent? Are all the people currently awaiting trial throughout this country innocent?

No, they are presumed innocent, which has zero bearing on whether or not they committed the crime. Plenty of guilty people escape prosecution or conviction.

[wtc911]

Ask a serious question and you will get an answer. But if you want to engage in silly parlor games by asking me to speculate on what zimmerman might have been thinking then find another playmate.

[rolling_stone]

IO wasn’t speculating on Zimmerman, I asked YOU what you would do..

[Dan Cooper]

Nonsense. Your base assumption, that zimmerman is the victim, cannot be proven.

Aside from Zimmermans's reported account, there is one other piece of evidence that can be weighed. According to Zimmerman's conversation with the police dispatcher, Martin broke contact. Zimmerman remarked that he took off running and he couldn't see him any more. Why didn't Martin continue to the residence where he was staying? It was only half a block away in a direction that would be away from Zimmerman. Why either turn back or loop around the block to come into contact with Zimmerman again? Whether Zimmerman was returning to his truck or was still walking around, it looks like the choice to make contact again was Martin's. Why would Martin do that unless he wanted to confront Zimmerman? It makes Zimmerman's account of Martin attacking him more plausible.

[Rooivalk]

Not surprising, they're remaing silent on these threads now........

Voice stress tests mean nothing in court. Therefore they mean nothing to me. If this is what you are hanging your hat on in professing the innocence of the shooter Zimmerman, I laugh in your face

If they administered a "voice stress test" then why not go all the way and administer a lie detector test? The Lie detector test is considered to have greater accuracy due to the history and regulation of that type of test

For me I wait until the full investigation is finished and the results published.

And take note that in spite of this weak "voice stress test" you are crowing about, the lead homicide detective on the case recommended that Zimmerman be ARRESTED on manslaughter charges as the results of the Sanford Police investigation

Seems like your "voice stress test" didn't mean anything to him

Lets hear you explain why Sanford Homicide recommended Zimmerman be arrested on manslaughter

You have avoided explaining that during the entire length of this discussion

[Rooivalk]

It makes Zimmerman's account of Martin attacking him more plausible.

I am still waiting for you Zimmerman defenders to explain why Zimmerman left his car in the first place

Zimmerman has never claimed he saw Martin commit any criminal act. So why did Zimmerman take it upon himself to leave his vehicle and start the chain of events that led to the killing?

That simple question remains unanswered. Can you answer it?

[Rooivalk]

Nonsense. Your base assumption, that zimmerman is the victim, cannot be proven.

Or if you think it has been proven just because he, the shooter says so, then I guess that McDonald's worker in MD really won the mega-millions --- after all, she said she did. And, I am not 'trying to prove zimmerman a liar' at all. I am making the point that without any neutral corrobaration nobody knows what happened - not you, not al sharpton - nobody.

And that my friend remains the elephant sitting in the room

All these Zimmerman supporters want to accept his version of events at face value while knowing that without the other side, Martin's side, you only have one side of the of this confrontation. And we all know that Zimmerman is not going to present himself in a negative light that would result in him being arrested for murder

Martin's side of the story died the night Zimmerman shot him

And we may never know what Zimmerman did to provoke the confrontation. What we DO know, without dispute is that Zimmerman took it upon himself to leave his vehicle and that set in motion a chain of events that led to a killing.

[wtc911]

Exactly.

[Dan Cooper]

"I am still waiting for you Zimmerman defenders to explain why Zimmerman left his car in the first place"

Zimmerman is driving to the store, sees an unknown person loitering in his neighborhood. Seeing that there have been burglaries lately, he watches and decides to call the police to check the guy out. The unknown person see him watching (as related in the telephone call recording) and takes off running. Running off is suspicious behavior. Zimmerman gets out to see where he went. The dispatcher advises him "we don't need you to do that" after asking if he is following, more to cover their liability that anything else.

I see nothing wrong with a guy checking out an unknown person in their neighborhood. This is a townhouse community with a clubhouse, so presumably they know each other fairly well. He wants to protect his neighbors from a possible burglar. They have an organized neighborhood watch, so presumably there is a a crime problem.

Martin had broken contact, he could have continued home. Why did he choose to make contact again? Why did he run. If he was afraid, why not continue all the way home?

[Randy Larsen]

Because he was never arrested. He was questioned then released and has been cooperating with police since the first moment.

[anglian]

A simmple question from Weird Guy 'Hey, do you live around here?' to Martin and perhaps a statement explaining that he was Neighborhood Watchman, would have been suffice when first encountering Martin when Martin was walking towards him at the intersection at 'Retreat View Circle' and 'Twin Trees'.

[citizen]

Either GZs father or brother said there was unmentioned evidence that the police have between the time he hung up with the dispatcher and got punched in the nose. That it would prove his innocence....For the life of me can't think what it could be.

This isn't "evidence" per se, but I have been wondering where George was attacked in relation to his SUV. If it was near his vehicle, then that shows that George was returning to his car and not continuing to follow Martin.