17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[baldeagle]

Trayvon's dad on the stand now. Should be interesting even though he was not a witness to the incident.

Why would they call him as a witness? It seems like there's very little possible gain and a lot of emotional risk.

Apparently he told the detectives it was not Martin's voice screaming for help on the tape of the call. Kind of an interesting twist actually.

It's more than that. His testimony impeached Attorney Crump's sworn affidavit to the court. This places Crump in play as well as the national coverage of "Dee Dee's phone call and the details of the call and how they were obtained. It's huge for the defense. They have scored a lot of points throughout the trial, but this may be the penultimate.

[philip964]

Trayvon's dad on the stand now. Should be interesting even though he was not a witness to the incident.

Why would they call him as a witness? It seems like there's very little possible gain and a lot of emotional risk.

Apparently he told the detectives it was not Martin's voice screaming for help on the tape of the call. Kind of an interesting twist actually.

It's more than that. His testimony impeached Attorney Crump's sworn affidavit to the court. This places Crump in play as well as the national coverage of "Dee Dee's phone call and the details of the call and how they were obtained. It's huge for the defense. They have scored a lot of points throughout the trial, but this may be the penultimate.

Sorry could you explain further. I'm lost as usual.

[ScooterSissy]

Trayvon's dad on the stand now. Should be interesting even though he was not a witness to the incident.

Why would they call him as a witness? It seems like there's very little possible gain and a lot of emotional risk.

The defense called Trayvon's father as a witness because they basically had to. They (the defense) had earlier gotten testimoney from two investigating officers that Trayvon's father originally said it wasn't him. Prosecution objected citing hearsay. They huddled at the bench for a long time, and the judge said she would rule later on the objection. They testified, and the judge kept reminding the defense on how far he could go with the questioning.
Trayvon's father was then called (by the defense), and said he never said "no" (but he really didn't sound convincing), then testified that after listening 20 times to the recording, he realized it was Trayvon (I suspect that if you translate that, it was really after listening to it 20 times, he convinced himself it was Trayvon).
Later, because Trayvon's father testified, the objection was withdrawn. I suspect that the defense argued that it was to establish rebuttal, and was allowed; but had he not called Martin, it would have been dismissed as hearsay.
But, I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong.

[SlowDave]

At this point, I still say it is a flip of the coin; from a Juror’s perspective. If the defense can present a "glove that doesn't fit" scenario, deliberation will be short and Zimmerman walks. Should be another interesting week of trial.

A "flip of the coin," by definition, calls for acquittal. Conviction calls for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A coin flip is absolutely acquittal. If you are "pretty sure" he did it, that's acquittal. You have to be almost positive that he did it to convict. Therefore, he will be acquitted, imo.

[SlowDave]

Sorry man, but self-defense does not require any "life threatening" injuries. As a matter of fact, they don't require any injuries at all. No one should have to wait until they've been seriously injured before they are justified in defending themselves.

Agree, but will a jury see it that way? Will they believe a few gashes and lumps justify an adult shooting to death a teenager that was not committing a crime? As Howdy has mentioned regarding Juror deliberations, they may not be privy to the info and understanding us armchair QB’s have.

O'Mara did clearly state this to the jury during questioning of one of the witnesses--I believe the one who testified that he did not have "life threatening injuries." He stated/asked, "But justified self defense does not require life threatening injuries does it? Or any injuries?" And the witness answered in the affirmative. Whether that stuck with the jurors or not is another question however.

[SlowDave]

The belief/fear for your life or fear of serious bodily injury is the standard. At least that is the way I understand it. Is that not the case?

Could it not be argued that Martin feared for his life? He felt he was being followed by a "creepy..." When they confronted one another, Zimmerman began to reach in his pocket for, at the time an unknown object. Martin may have then at that time struck Zimmerman in the face out of fear for his life. Should Martin have waited for a deadly weapon to be produced? Because it is fact that Zimmerman conceded and later used a deadly weapon resulting in death. This is not an open and close case folks. The jurors have a lot to consider.

So by your argument, Trayvon would have been justified in killing Zimmerman because he followed Martin and then put his hand in his pocket? So if Trayvon had a gun and had shot and killed Zimmerman in that moment, it would be justified? That is not *reasonable* fear for your life. That is unreasonable fear for your life. If someone walking behind me into the grocery store or 7-11 at night reaches in their pocket, I cannot assault and/or kill them because I have some paranoid mental state. So no. Trayvon may have been scared, but he did not have cause to reasonably be in fear for his life.

Compare that proposed standard for "reasonable fear for your life" (someone following you and then putting their hand in their pocket) to the actual self defense situation being argued: having your face punched and head (arguably) banged on the sidewalk. No comparison.

[SlowDave]

The incredibly frequent breaks for commercials on HLN are driving me nuts. Where is a better place to watch the trial?

Yahoo is providing a video/audio feed along with comments and re-tweets from local lawyers. I judge it as neutral and quite informative, although the audio/video does cut out quite a bit.

http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman- ... 43188.html

[baldeagle]

Trayvon's dad on the stand now. Should be interesting even though he was not a witness to the incident.

Why would they call him as a witness? It seems like there's very little possible gain and a lot of emotional risk.

Apparently he told the detectives it was not Martin's voice screaming for help on the tape of the call. Kind of an interesting twist actually.

It's more than that. His testimony impeached Attorney Crump's sworn affidavit to the court. This places Crump in play as well as the national coverage of "Dee Dee's phone call and the details of the call and how they were obtained. It's huge for the defense. They have scored a lot of points throughout the trial, but this may be the penultimate.

Sorry could you explain further. I'm lost as usual.

OK.

Ben Crump is one of the attorney's who started the national outrage about race in this case. He is the attorney for the Martin family. When Tracy Martin found "Dee Dee's" phone number on Trayvon's phone and realized that he might have been talking to her at the time he was shot and killed, he turned the phone number over to Crump instead of the police. Crump then contacted "Dee Dee" (her real name is Rachel Jeantel) and arranged to interview her. He recorded parts of the interview and testified under oath that nothing "substantive" was discussed when the recorder was turned off. Unfortunately for him, he forgot that he had invited Matt Guttman of ABC to attend the interview. (Guttman, you may recall, had much of the "breaking" news that escalated the story to a national level - obviously being fed to him directly by the Crump team.) ABC recorded the ENTIRE session, including the parts that Crump claimed were inconsequential. Crump also testified under oath (in the same sworn affidavit) that Tracy Martin had told him that he told the police he wasn't sure that the voice screaming on the 911 tape was his son. Crump also testified that after Tracey had listened to a "cleaned up" version of the call he identified the voice as his sons. All of this was under oath.

The story that went out in the national news was:

Police lied Friday, Crump said, when they said Tracy Martin said the voice crying for help was not his son. What Tracy Martin told police, Crump said, was that "he couldn't tell, that it was too distorted."

The audio has since been cleaned up, and now Tracy Martin has no doubt but that the voice is his son, Crump said.

Today, Detectives Serino and Singleton both testified that, when asked if the voice was his son's, Tracy Martin said no. Tracy, today, equivocated on the stand. However, he testified that he never told Crump that he had told the police he wasn't sure because the tape was too distorted, and he never listened to a "cleaned up" version of the tape. This means, based on sworn testimony, Crump lied under oath. Not only that, but the ABC tape (subpoenaed by the defense) revealed that not only had Crump spoken about substantive issues during the unrecorded portion of his tape (also lied to under oath) but he had coached Jeantel to tell the story he wanted.

So now, if the judge allows it, Crump will have to testify under oath in open court with two tapes entered into evidence, his and ABC's that clearly show that he lied under oath in his affidavit. That means Jeantel's lies and obvious coaching will be heard and seen by the jury as well. If the defense is allowed to question Crump's motives as well, that will bring in the entire scheme to make the case about race and force the state to prosecute. When counterbalanced by Zimmerman's consistency, the obvious quality of the witnesses who support his story and the evidence showing that he acted in self defense (and nothing showing that he didn't), this would destroy whatever credibility that the prosecution has left and the case will crumble.

[SlowDave]

Zimmerman is going to jail. He cannot afford expert witness for voice print Analysts. Instead, they're playing he said she said. Zimmerman's mom says screamer on 911 recording is zimmerman while trayvon's mom says it sounds like trayvon. I can't believe that gov't w unlimited resources overlooks voice print analysis. Their analysis probably says screamer is zimmerman so they hid evidence from the defense. This is lynching n railroading.

They said there is like 2 seconds of the screaming that is not under other peoples' voices on the 911 tape. Experts testified that it was very difficult and inconclusive to determine who was doing the screaming. I believe this was the right decision.

Going to jail? So, they proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not defending himself in fear for his life? Wow.

[SlowDave]

Thanks baldeagle! That was a very good explanation. I had completely forgotten about the role of Crump and the ABC news guy. After hearing that explanation, I agree that the defense may be moving to put Crump on the stand and just watch the whole prosecution case implode. I did not realize that was where the defense might be going with putting Tracy Martin on the stand.

[mojo84]

Good info baldeagle. That helps full in some blanks for me since I haven't followed the trial very closely. Thanks

[baldeagle]

Happy to help guys.

[drjoker]

Zimmerman is going to jail. He cannot afford expert witness for voice print Analysts. Instead, they're playing he said she said. Zimmerman's mom says screamer on 911 recording is zimmerman while trayvon's mom says it sounds like trayvon. I can't believe that gov't w unlimited resources overlooks voice print analysis. Their analysis probably says screamer is zimmerman so they hid evidence from the defense. This is lynching n railroading.

They said there is like 2 seconds of the screaming that is not under other peoples' voices on the 911 tape. Experts testified that it was very difficult and inconclusive to determine who was doing the screaming. I believe this was the right decision.

Going to jail? So, they proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not defending himself in fear for his life? Wow.

You and I are NOT sequestered jury. If you're following the case, you'll remember that some evidence that was advantageous to Zimmerman was disallowed. Also, some other evidence was asked by the judge to the jury for the jury NOT to consider as part of the body of evidence used to make their judgement. Using ONLY the evidence that the jury is supposed to consider, the case is going in favor of the prosecution.

[drjoker]

That's if the biased for the defense judge would allow this to happen. Crump is not an expert witness used to analyze evidence. Crump is not a character witness. Crump's testimony could be ruled hearsay and disallowed, as with all the other evidence that is advantageous to the defense that has already been disallowed. I certainly hope what you're saying is correct, for justice's sake. I certainly hope that the lawyer for the defense is not an idiot who told a "knock knock" joke during a murder trial.

Trayvon's dad on the stand now. Should be interesting even though he was not a witness to the incident.

Why would they call him as a witness? It seems like there's very little possible gain and a lot of emotional risk.

Apparently he told the detectives it was not Martin's voice screaming for help on the tape of the call. Kind of an interesting twist actually.

It's more than that. His testimony impeached Attorney Crump's sworn affidavit to the court. This places Crump in play as well as the national coverage of "Dee Dee's phone call and the details of the call and how they were obtained. It's huge for the defense. They have scored a lot of points throughout the trial, but this may be the penultimate.

Sorry could you explain further. I'm lost as usual.

OK.

Ben Crump is one of the attorney's who started the national outrage about race in this case. He is the attorney for the Martin family. When Tracy Martin found "Dee Dee's" phone number on Trayvon's phone and realized that he might have been talking to her at the time he was shot and killed, he turned the phone number over to Crump instead of the police. Crump then contacted "Dee Dee" (her real name is Rachel Jeantel) and arranged to interview her. He recorded parts of the interview and testified under oath that nothing "substantive" was discussed when the recorder was turned off. Unfortunately for him, he forgot that he had invited Matt Guttman of ABC to attend the interview. (Guttman, you may recall, had much of the "breaking" news that escalated the story to a national level - obviously being fed to him directly by the Crump team.) ABC recorded the ENTIRE session, including the parts that Crump claimed were inconsequential. Crump also testified under oath (in the same sworn affidavit) that Tracy Martin had told him that he told the police he wasn't sure that the voice screaming on the 911 tape was his son. Crump also testified that after Tracey had listened to a "cleaned up" version of the call he identified the voice as his sons. All of this was under oath.

The story that went out in the national news was:

Police lied Friday, Crump said, when they said Tracy Martin said the voice crying for help was not his son. What Tracy Martin told police, Crump said, was that "he couldn't tell, that it was too distorted."

The audio has since been cleaned up, and now Tracy Martin has no doubt but that the voice is his son, Crump said.

Today, Detectives Serino and Singleton both testified that, when asked if the voice was his son's, Tracy Martin said no. Tracy, today, equivocated on the stand. However, he testified that he never told Crump that he had told the police he wasn't sure because the tape was too distorted, and he never listened to a "cleaned up" version of the tape. This means, based on sworn testimony, Crump lied under oath. Not only that, but the ABC tape (subpoenaed by the defense) revealed that not only had Crump spoken about substantive issues during the unrecorded portion of his tape (also lied to under oath) but he had coached Jeantel to tell the story he wanted.

So now, if the judge allows it, Crump will have to testify under oath in open court with two tapes entered into evidence, his and ABC's that clearly show that he lied under oath in his affidavit. That means Jeantel's lies and obvious coaching will be heard and seen by the jury as well. If the defense is allowed to question Crump's motives as well, that will bring in the entire scheme to make the case about race and force the state to prosecute. When counterbalanced by Zimmerman's consistency, the obvious quality of the witnesses who support his story and the evidence showing that he acted in self defense (and nothing showing that he didn't), this would destroy whatever credibility that the prosecution has left and the case will crumble.

[drjoker]

Using computer algorithms that the FBI and homeland security uses to analyze voice data, 2 seconds is more than enough screaming to positiviely identify the screamer. All you need is 93 milliseconds, which is only 0.093 seconds. Here is the scientific article to back this up:
http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers ... -pitch.pdf

... we applied a comb-notch filtering method to sep-
arate two Finnish vowels /a/ and /i/ from a mixed voice signal. The
length of the analyzed segment was 93 ms...

Zimmerman could not afford a world class voice analyst as an expert witness. Zimmerman could not afford a competent attorney (read my post about the "knock knock" joke he told). Zimmerman has a "dream team". His team is sleeping on the job!

Zimmerman is going to jail. He cannot afford expert witness for voice print Analysts. Instead, they're playing he said she said. Zimmerman's mom says screamer on 911 recording is zimmerman while trayvon's mom says it sounds like trayvon. I can't believe that gov't w unlimited resources overlooks voice print analysis. Their analysis probably says screamer is zimmerman so they hid evidence from the defense. This is lynching n railroading.

They said there is like 2 seconds of the screaming that is not under other peoples' voices on the 911 tape. Experts testified that it was very difficult and inconclusive to determine who was doing the screaming. I believe this was the right decision.

Going to jail? So, they proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not defending himself in fear for his life? Wow.