• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trayvon's voice - what does the expert quoted say?

Last edited:
We have a hung / split jury.

IMO, the orginal FBI analysis stating the phone recording was of poor quality to determine anything concreate is more likely the correct analysis of the data.
 
mike2810 said:
We have a hung / split jury.

IMO, the orginal FBI analysis stating the phone recording was of poor quality to determine anything concreate is more likely the correct analysis of the data.
Click to expand...

That is the more sensible position.
 
Excon said:
That is the more sensible position.
Click to expand...

There will "experts" who will side with the prosecution. There are "experts" who will side with the defense. The jury will have to decide who is more creditable.

For me, its the FBI on this one.
 
mike2810 said:
There will "experts" who will side with the prosecution. There are "experts" who will side with the defense. The jury will have to decide who is more creditable.

For me, its the FBI on this one.
Click to expand...
That depends on what Judge "Goodman" allowed to be presented.

I doubt she legally could keep the FBI expert out.
The rest I am sure she can.
 
Excon said:
That depends on what Judge "Goodman" allowed to be presented.

I doubt she legally could keep the FBI expert out.
The rest I am sure she can.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
mike2810 said:
There will "experts" who will side with the prosecution. There are "experts" who will side with the defense. The jury will have to decide who is more creditable.

For me, its the FBI on this one.
Click to expand...

Mike - Common sense will prevail

It's extremely unlikely that M (on top of Z, hitting and slamming Z's head on the concrete) screaming "help me! help me!"

There's simply no reason whatsoever why M would have called for help.
 
ric27 said:
Mike - Common sense will prevail

It's extremely unlikely that M (on top of Z, hitting and slamming Z's head on the concrete) screaming "help me! help me!"

There's simply no reason whatsoever why M would have called for help.
Click to expand...

Fear of death obviously.
 
anyone know what the prosecution's excuse was for not turning over that audio data to the defense?
 
justabubba said:
anyone know what the prosecution's excuse was for not turning over that audio data to the defense?
Click to expand...
Just a guess.

He already had it tested with the same software, and whas even a less probably match.
 
Last edited:
JackFrost said:
Fear of death obviously.
Click to expand...

Just minutes after the shooting, Z gave his version without counsel and would have had no idea what other people might have seen or heard, so there was no way Z could have custom-fit a false account to be consistent with versions of other witnesses.

The physically assaulted Z was the observed screamer ... any other claim is nonsense.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Just a guess.

He already had it tested with the same software, and what even a less probably match.
Click to expand...

that would be cause for sanction

prosecution does not get to determine the legitimacy of evidence on behalf of the defense
 
justabubba said:
anyone know what the prosecution's excuse was for not turning over that audio data to the defense?
Click to expand...

I would guess it is the same excuse as for the rest of it.
[We gave you the source data.] ​
 
ric27 said:
Just minutes after the shooting, Z gave his version without counsel and would have had no idea what other people might have seen or heard, so there was no way Z could have custom-fit a false account to be consistent with versions of other witnesses.

The physically assaulted Z was the observed screamer ... any other claim is nonsense.
Click to expand...

That is a very logical, common sense conclusion and one that was a factor in why police released Zimmerman instead of arresting him after the shooting. It is also precisely why it is completely ignored by Martin supporters... Common sense just doesn't fit their agenda very well.
 
ric27 said:
Mike - Common sense will prevail

It's extremely unlikely that M (on top of Z, hitting and slamming Z's head on the concrete) screaming "help me! help me!"

There's simply no reason whatsoever why M would have called for help.
Click to expand...

Unless he was desperately trying to keep this weirdo from getting his gun out.

That's one reason, so whatever.
 
What if...? said:
Unless he was desperately trying to keep this weirdo from getting his gun out.

That's one reason, so whatever.
Click to expand...

No evidence to support your assertion.
So it wouldn't be a reason.
 
I think the expert said he heard Bob Dylan.

(lets see if anybody actually gets it.)
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
Unless he was desperately trying to keep this weirdo from getting his gun out.

That's one reason, so whatever.
Click to expand...

You have no reliable evidence for that.

On Z's side....forensic evidence on clothing and the bullet trajectory all support the version Z indicates

Keep trying though
 
ric27 said:
Just minutes after the shooting, Z gave his version without counsel and would have had no idea what other people might have seen or heard, so there was no way Z could have custom-fit a false account to be consistent with versions of other witnesses.

The physically assaulted Z was the observed screamer ... any other claim is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all accounts. You have no evidence to back this up.
 
JackFrost said:
Wrong on all accounts. You have no evidence to back this up.
Click to expand...
Actually we do.
John, you know the guy you think recanted.

He gave a deposition, and O'Mara and West are not allowed to purposely misrepresent what a witness has testified to.
Haven't you wondered why the Prosecutor hasn't objected to their saying such in at least two different hearings?
 
Excon said:
Actually we do.
John, you know the guy you think recanted.

He gave a deposition, and O'Mara and West are not allowed to purposely misrepresent what a witness has testified to.
Haven't you wondered why the Prosecutor hasn't objected to their saying such in at least two different hearings?
Click to expand...

Again, no evidence to back up your claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom