Judge: No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial

LionofJudah

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
6,372
Reputation
835
Daps
11,599
Reppin
NULL
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The judge in the murder trial of George Zimmerman said Saturday that prosecution audio experts who point to Trayvon Martin as screaming on a 911 call moments before he was killed won't be allowed to testify at trial.

Judge Debra Nelson reached her decision after hearing arguments that stretched over several days this month on whether to allow testimony from two prosecution experts. One expert ruled out Zimmerman as the screamer and another said it was Martin. Defense experts argued there was not enough audio to determine who the screams are coming from. Zimmerman's attorneys also argued that the state experts' analysis is flawed.

Nelson ruled that the methods used by the experts aren't reliable. But her ruling doesn't prevent the 911 calls from being played at trial.

The screams 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.

Opening statements are set for Monday in the second-degree murder trial for the former neighborhood watch volunteer who says he fired on the unarmed black teenager in self-defense last year. Zimmerman is pleading not guilty.

The elimination of the audio experts will likely shorten the trial by a week. Before the ruling, attorneys had predicted the trial could last two to four weeks after opening statements.

A spokeswoman for prosecutors didn't immediately return an email Saturday.

Audio experts from both sides testified at different times during the hearing, which stretched over three weeks. Voice experts were hired by lawyers and news organizations to analyze the calls, which were made during the confrontation between the two. The experts arrived at mixed conclusions.

In deciding whether to admit the voice-recognition technology used by prosecution audio experts Tom Owen and Alan Reich, Nelson had to determine whether it is too novel or whether it has been accepted by the scientific community at-large.

"There is no evidence to establish that their scientific techniques have been tested and found reliable," the judge said in her ruling.

Owen was hired by the Orlando Sentinel last year to compare a voice sample of Zimmerman with screams for help captured on 911 calls made by neighbors. He said Zimmerman's voice doesn't match the screams. He only compared Zimmerman's voice to the 911 calls because he didn't have a voice sample for Martin at the time.

"The screams don't match at all," Owen testified during the hearing. "That's what tells me the screams aren't George Zimmerman."

Owen also testified that remarks Zimmerman made in a conversation with a police dispatcher aren't a racial slur. He testified Zimmerman said, "These f------ punks."

Reich testified in a report for prosecutors that the screams on the 911 tapes were from Martin, and the defense does not want him to testify at trial.

Reich's analysis also picked up words that other experts couldn't find. They include the words, "This shall be" from Zimmerman and "I'm begging you" from Martin.

Reich's testimony would "confuse issues, mislead the jury," the judge said.

In contrast, a British audio expert testified for the defense that it would be extremely difficult to analyze voices by comparing screaming to a normal voice.

"I've never come across a case in my 13 years where anybody's tried to compare screaming to a normal voice," said audio expert Peter French.

A second audio expert for the defense, George Doddington, also criticized prosecution experts who said Friday that screams and pleas on a 911 recording likely belonged to Martin.

"It's all ridiculous," Doddington said.

Judge: No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial

We all know what's happening here...
 

Beegio

You ni66as don't exist we eat filet mignon
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
3,443
Reputation
1,170
Daps
7,983
That's actually a good thing IMO.

You can't definitively prove it was Trayvon screaming, thus, no ability for MOM to use it as doubt.
 

LionofJudah

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
6,372
Reputation
835
Daps
11,599
Reppin
NULL
In what way?

Well let's use COMMON SENSE here..Zimmerman previously claimed he was screaming for help, yet now the defense wants the audio experts thrown out. If it was him, he would want included. hence, it obviously wasn't him screaming. Not to mention, he had a fukking gun on him. Why would he need to scream?
 

Beegio

You ni66as don't exist we eat filet mignon
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
3,443
Reputation
1,170
Daps
7,983
Well let's use COMMON SENSE here..Zimmerman previously claimed he was screaming for help, yet now the defense wants the audio experts thrown out. If it was him, he would want included. hence, it obviously wasn't him screaming. Not to mention, he had a fukking gun on him. Why would he need to scream?

God bless you emotional child.

Lets bring it back to reality though.

Why are you talking about common sense in a court proceeding?

Its about what you can prove, not what makes sense.

If the prosecution was able to introduce their voice expert testimony, then the defense would bring in their own expert witness with the exact opposite testimony. In my opinion that would be a slippery slope because then the jury has to decide which expert they want to believe. It gives opportunity to raise doubt.

The prosecution has he burden of proof, all the defense needs is to raise doubt on ONE issue. Not to mention the make up of the jury. :mindblown:
 

LionofJudah

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
6,372
Reputation
835
Daps
11,599
Reppin
NULL
God bless you emotional child.

Lets bring it back to reality though.

Why are you talking about common sense in a court proceeding?

Its about what you can prove, not what makes sense.

If the prosecution was able to introduce their voice expert testimony, then the defense would bring in their own expert witness with the exact opposite testimony. In my opinion that would be a slippery slope because then the jury has to decide which expert they want to believe. It gives opportunity to raise doubt.

The prosecution has he burden of proof, all the defense needs is to raise doubt on ONE issue. Not to mention the make up of the jury. :mindblown:

So then how is it a 'good thing' according to you? Obviously you want Zimmerman to get off (and he will). Audio experts CAN prove whose voice it was, regardless of who refutes that information. Again, if it was Zimmerman screaming as he claimed, he would want the audio testimony included. The defense is the one who can't PROVE it was Zimmerman, not the other way around. Eliminating the right for audio testimony to be included, sabotages the prosecution, which has been the plan from the start.
 

Beegio

You ni66as don't exist we eat filet mignon
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
3,443
Reputation
1,170
Daps
7,983
So then how is it a 'good thing' according to you? Obviously you want Zimmerman to get off (and he will). Audio experts CAN prove whose voice it was, regardless of who refutes that information. Again, if it was Zimmerman screaming as he claimed, he would want the audio testimony included. The defense is the one who can't PROVE it was Zimmerman, not the other way around. Eliminating the right for audio testimony to be included, sabotages the prosecution, which has been the plan from the start.

:what:

Okay, Im done with this back and forth with you.

You are CLEARLY an idiot.

You can continue your make believe argument with me, without me.

You've done a fine job arguing with yourself thusfar. :heh:
 

LionofJudah

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
6,372
Reputation
835
Daps
11,599
Reppin
NULL
:what:

Okay, Im done with this back and forth with you.

You are CLEARLY an idiot.

You can continue your make believe argument with me, without me.

You've done a fine job arguing with yourself thusfar. :heh:

Proverbs 28:1
The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.
 

LionofJudah

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
6,372
Reputation
835
Daps
11,599
Reppin
NULL
Beegio 6:22:13
"I ain't arguing with no dumb nikkas" :mjpls:

But according to you, you already have hence 'back and forth'.

Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

So, you're already a dumb nikka.
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
8,291
Reputation
3,075
Daps
23,122
So then how is it a 'good thing' according to you? Obviously you want Zimmerman to get off (and he will). Audio experts CAN prove whose voice it was, regardless of who refutes that information. Again, if it was Zimmerman screaming as he claimed, he would want the audio testimony included. The defense is the one who can't PROVE it was Zimmerman, not the other way around. Eliminating the right for audio testimony to be included, sabotages the prosecution, which has been the plan from the start.
listen here child. Listen and learn. The grand objective for the defense is to simply raise doubt. They don't have to prove ANYTHING.

The recording is a VERY pivotal in this case, and whoever gains that leverage wins the case. Even IF it was Zimmerman screaming, people are more likely to believe a scream like that came from a child, not a grown man. Why would the defense ever allow that type of risk?

And regardless, When you are defending a criminal case, the LESS evidence the BETTER. Therefore, CLOSING that door of opportunity is a better strategy than RISK.


It's not about who you believe is guilty, it's about understanding strategy.
 

LionofJudah

Banned
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
6,372
Reputation
835
Daps
11,599
Reppin
NULL
listen here child. Listen and learn. The grand objective for the defense is to simply raise doubt. They don't have to prove ANYTHING.

The recording is a VERY pivotal in this case, and whoever gains that leverage wins the case. Even IF it was Zimmerman screaming, Why would the defense ever allow that type of evidence?


When you are defending a criminal case, the LESS evidence the BETTER. Therefore, CLOSING that door of opportunity is a better strategy than RISK.

Thanks for proving my point, you fukking idiot.
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
8,291
Reputation
3,075
Daps
23,122
Thanks for proving my point, you fukking idiot.


your point is dumb in the first place. Defense doesn't have to prove anything, JUST RAISE DOUBT. No evidence to dispute = no conviction.

whos schooling you foolish nikkas:laff:

Proverbs 1:7 "fools hate learning, and despise wisdom":smugbiden:
 

Beegio

You ni66as don't exist we eat filet mignon
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
3,443
Reputation
1,170
Daps
7,983
listen here child. Listen and learn. The grand objective for the defense is to simply raise doubt. They don't have to prove ANYTHING.

The recording is a VERY pivotal in this case, and whoever gains that leverage wins the case. Even IF it was Zimmerman screaming, people are more likely to believe a scream like that came from a child, not a grown man. Why would the defense ever allow that type of risk?

And regardless, When you are defending a criminal case, the LESS evidence the BETTER. Therefore, CLOSING that door of opportunity is a better strategy than RISK.


It's not about who you believe is guilty, it's about understanding strategy.

1367496144-golf-clap.gif


He don't hear you though :heh:

Lionofjudahdumbnikka logic 6:22:13

"Obviously you're rooting for George Zimmerman because I don't understand what you're saying"
 
Top