Home » Uncategorized » May 14, 2013 – Open Thread

May 14, 2013 – Open Thread

SerinoWill we see the Lead Investigator, Chris Serino, take the stand in the George Zimmerman trial?  In reading the slew of motions filed by the State of Florida late on Friday, May 10th, one might think we won’t.

Headlines yesterday read the Prosecutor doesn’t want the trial to be about Trayvon Martin’s past troubles.  That of course would be unfair to the defendant, in a case where self-defense is being claimed.  The media, without any discovery being disclosed in March and April of 2012 reported repeatedly that Trayvon Martin, the young child, was a victim of a wannabe cop.  Will the Judge help the State continue to portray Trayvon Martin as the innocent victim that night?  We have seen zero evidence of what the State alleges in its Probable Cause Affidavit.

Since the State’s discovery started its slow roll out in May of 2012, it became clear that George Zimmerman was assaulted by this young man and it was George Zimmerman, who was looking out for his neighbors who was victimized by Trayvon Martin.

We will be in a fight to get the media, who long ago, decided Trayvon is the victim in this case and will look to protect his reputation because he died.  If justice is to be served, the truth, the whole truth must be told in courtroom 5D in Seminole County.

A summary of the filings by the State are as follows:

Regarding Trayvon Martin

Motion in limine* regarding Trayvon Martin (A motion “in limine,” from a Latin phrase meaning “at the start,” is filed to get certain evidence included at or excluded from trial.)

Here, the state asks the court to prohibit any mention during trial of “certain facts or opinions associated with Trayvon Martin,” including whether the 17-year-old:

  • Had ever been suspended from school
  • Had previously used or communicated about marijuana
  • Had ever allegedly been in a fight;
  • Had ever posted or had “screen names” on social media
  • Had ever possessed or worn a set of false gold teeth
  • Any aspect of Martin’s school records, or his performance in school
  • Any text messages Martin sent or received before the day he was shot
  • Any text messages Martin sent or received on Feb. 26, 2012, “until the relevance and admissibility of the same has been ruled upon by the court.”

The state argues such evidence is irrelevant to the trial and the events surrounding his death.

No talk of failure to call witnesses

State’s motion in limine regarding calling of witnesses

Prosecutors want to block the defense from implying that the state failed to call a witness because their testimony would be unfavorable to the prosecution.

No talk of “appropriate penalty”

Motion in limine regarding opinion as to appropriate penalty or disregard of law

Here, the state wants to block the defense from mentioning Zimmerman’s possible punishment if he is found guilty.

The maximum sentence George Zimmerman faces if convicted is life in prison. Prosecutors don’t want that to affect the jury’s decision of whether Zimmerman is guilty or not guilty of second-degree murder.

In the same motion, the state also said the defense should be prohibited from “insinuating that any juror should disregard the law,” or implying that a jury has the power to pardon a defendant.

No mention of marijuana in Trayvon’s blood

Motion for protective order/motion in limine regarding toxicology

The state wants to block any mention of any possible traces of marijuana in Trayvon Martin’s blood on the night he was killed.

The motion says: “No witness has suggested that the level of marijuana reflected in the victim’s blood sample has any bearing whatsoever on the cause of his death. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the victim ingested the marijuana at or even near the time of death; that he was under the influence; or that being under the influence would in any way be relevant to the actions of either vict

No “self-serving hearsay”

Motion in limine regarding self-serving hearsay statements of defendant

The state wants to block any “hearsay” statements Zimmerman may have made to witnesses. Evidence deemed hearsay is generally not allowed in court. This motion cites a previous Florida ruling that a defendant’s testimony that he had no prior convictions is “an improper attempt to introduce evidence of general character or reputation.”

No witness opinions on guilt or innocence

Motion to limit/exclude improper opinion evidence

The state wants to make sure the defense does not attempt to ask witnesses whether they think George Zimmerman is guilty, or their opinion regarding his being charged.

The motion cites a previous Florida ruling that “a witness’ opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused is not admissible.”

No talk of Zimmerman’s lack of prior felony convictions

Motion in limine regarding prior criminal history

The state doesn’t want the defense to be allowed to mention that George Zimmerman had no previous felony convictions.  This motion cites a previous Florida ruling that a defendant’s testimony that he had no prior convictions is “an improper attempt to introduce evidence of general character or reputation.”

State wants Defense to Turn over Reciprocal Discovery

Motion to Compel Discovery

The state wants the defense to turn over discovery.  The motion isn’t specific on what discovery.

State’s Response to Evidentiary Hearing

State’s Response to Evidentiary Hearing Request

The State says a “Frye” hearing isn’t needed by rather experts should be deposed. A Frye hearing is a pretrial hearing to determine if evidence obtained pursuant to a new theory or methodology should be admitted or excluded during the trial.

After reading the State’s motions to the court, it is clear they know who Trayvon Martin was.  They know the Trayvon Martin that George Zimmerman came upon on the night of February 26, 2012 and they want to keep that young man from the jury.  As we all get to know more about the Trayvon that George met that night, we know more about why the parents keep harping on George getting out of the car.  They knew what effect that action would have on their son.  They knew that George put himself in danger because they knew their son.  Getting out of your car to keep an eye on a stranger in the neighborhood does not justify a beat-down.  It’s shameful that the State of Florida is behaving as though it does.

We await the higher court’s decision on deposing Mr. Crump.  If you haven’t submitted a vote, please do so and let us know your prediction.

For newcomers, please know that racist remarks will be trashed.  If you are presenting yourself as a George Zimmerman supporter, please keep in mind this man is in a fight for his life.  Conduct yourself in a way that won’t bring heartache and/or embarrassment to the Zimmerman family.

If you’d like to share something privately, you can email me at nettles@bell.net

For those who can, please use the link at the top of the page to make a donation to the defense fund.  Thank you for helping.


127 thoughts on “May 14, 2013 – Open Thread

  1. If I post this comment and check the little box, I’ll get emails telling me when somebody else posts to this thread.

    Lots and lots of emails.

    : – )

    • What does this mean, unitron? : – )

      I did a search but no results.

      Nettles: Your commentary today is outstanding,

      • What does my post mean?

        It was a longer, and allegedly humorous, way of saying “follow”.

        (the only way, that I know of, to get notification emails of new posts to a thread by others is to post and check the “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” box, there being no way to submit the checking of the box without also submitting a comment)

        What does

        : – ) mean?

        It’s a “smilie” or “emoticon” (icon intended to convey emotion).

        You have to look at it sideways.

        The colon is the eyes, the hyphen is the nose, and the closing parenthesis is the smiling mouth.

        And here’s how I feel if I misunderstood your question and failed to cover what you were actually asking…

        : – (

          • Cboldt, you responded to a comment I made last night about how I thought that a lead investigators opinion regarding guilt should be allowed in and I had a follow up question. Could OMara ask serino if he thought there was enough evidence to charge zimmerman at the time that the state took over the case?

            • Judging from all of Bernies Motions in Limine, every time O’Mara’s lips begin to part, Bernie will be jumping up and saying I object your honor. If Nelson goes along with Bernies motions, O’Mara may as well walk into the courtroom with a muzzel on. Bernie is going for the Oscar.

            • I believe the answer to that is “no,” for a similar reason I gave yesterday. That’s more or less allowing Serino to step into the shoes of the prosecutor who decides if the evidence is strong enough to support a charge and trial. However, O’Mara can ask if the SPD arrested Zimmerman (absence of SPD arrest is probably common knowledge to the jurors), and can ask Serino to describe the legal standard for the police to put a suspect under arrest. “What is the practice of the SPD when it has probable cause that a suspect has committed a serious crime?”

              From my point of view, the ultimate opinion of Serino is self-evident by absence of police arrest. I suppose it gets to the same place, whether the question is “should he have been charged” or “should the police have arrested him,” and my “no” is to whether or not Serino has the right to give his opinion about Zimmerman being charged.

              The opinion that he sent to Wolfinger (which is in direct opposition to the actions of the SPD) is interesting in a couple ways. As to the Zimmerman trial, Serino had to invent an unworkable legal theory in order to justify a suggestion to (arrest and) charge Zimmerman. As to a trial pertaining to wrongful prosecution, Serino’s testimony as to WHY he recommended prosecution based on an unworkable legal theory will go to show something akin to malice – inventing a bogus crime in order to facilitate prosecuting a person.

              • cboldt – ‘inventing a bogus crime in order to facilitate prosecuting a person’.

                I agree that the charge was bogus. but the question of Serino’s motivation is open to debate. there are so many red herrings in regards serino that it’s difficult to know where he stands exactly. But Serino never said he believed zimmerman should be charged. It doesnt make sense that he didnt mention charging zimmerman during 2 weeks of meetings – SPD & JimCarter. It doesnt make sense that he would have charged because of internal pressure from 3 boobs that weren’t directly involved in the investigation,either.

                SPD was taking all the heat for not charging zimmeman and wolfinger was avoiding any official proclamation – although I believe the 776.032 language came from him. O’Connor was quoted by the OrlandoSentinel, “Basically, the implied order was, ‘Get it out the door’… We wrote up what we had, the context of what we had … with the understanding that there was still insufficient evidence for the State Attorney to charge.”

                o’connor & smith wanted to drop the hot potato on wolfinger. It appears that Serino was just doing what he was instructed to do. but serino couldnt just check the box for ‘manslaughter’ without modifying the report to include elements of the charge. He couldnt alter the facts, so he added the now infamous hypothetical statements – “if (only) Zimmerman had remained In his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement” etc.. – in an attempt to assign some culpability to zimmerman.

                Unfortunately, what O’Connor (/Serino) thought was a mere formality, or workaround, to forwarding the case to SAO has and will harm zimmerman. 1) Serino’s editorializing has been used by zimmerman’s detractors, ad nauseam, as proof that zimmerman is guilty. 2) BDLR will attempt to discredit Serino, and by extension SPD.

                If you read Sergeant Santiago’s depo you get an understanding why BDLR would like to keep the cops from testifying – DAMNING. During Bernie’s crossx he is obviously perturbed, trying to put words in santiago’s mouth. what a Tool!

                wouldnt this depo be a barometer for the line of questioning at trial?

                • irishgerard

                  You post describes perfectly and accurately what I recall about that report and all of the discussion about checking the manslaughter box. I did not keep the link but it is out there.

                  Thanks a lot

          • “Now you are going weird on us.”

            Pretty sure I always was.

            Maybe you’re only just now noticing.

            : – )

    • analyst1961 – I bet Corey along w/BDLR have finally figured out they’ve been played by not only Sybrina/Tracy, but Crump & Handler’s. Those sweet parents that created an image of TM that never was, more than willingly participated in screwing over BDLR/Corey.

      TOO lazy to vet W-8 themselves, seems imo, the State took Crump/Sybrina/Tracy at their word, they even bought into the created image of TM. I have followed high profile cases since high school, I have never seen the deception & interference in a States case as Crump has pulled in this one. WHY isn’t the participation of Crump/Sybrina/Tracy & Natty Jack witness tampering with W-8?

      I am still having a hard time trying to visualize what is left of the States case, it doesn’t seem like much.

      • We just don’t have enough evidence to conclude that W-8’s testimony has been tampered. All the circumstantial stuff points that way; association with Crump, inordinate delay being identified as a witness, did not come forward of her own volition, had “help” composing a written statement. But, if her testimony is truthful in all material regards, then there hasn’t been tampering. I think there is plenty of cause to dig further, and tampering may well be found. It’s a crime of its own right. Unfortunately, I don’t see the state prosecuting even if there is rock solid proof of tampering and the tampering was blatant. NY didn’t prosecute Tawana Brawley.

        • ” Unfortunately, I don’t see the state prosecuting even if there is rock solid proof of tampering and the tampering was blatant. NY didn’t prosecute Tawana Brawley.”

          Well, in her case she actually was a minor, so maybe that was why.

  2. The timing of the next hearing isn’t going to be in the proscution’s favor. BDLR is going to be talking in open court with the defense about suppressing Trayvon’s past behavior and defense will be arguing why some of it is relevant to describe the youth George Zimmerman encountered that night.

    All 4,300 people who received a juror notice to report to the courthouse on June 10th will be paying very close attention to the May 28th hearing.

    BDLR might have been better to have argued this point once the jury was selected and before testimony began. I was very surprised to read in the motions that the Prosecutor thinks prior fights are not relevant. I’d bet 98% of the population would disagree with him.

    • I just posted this at D-Man’s blog about the Reich report:

      Mr. Reich says that George Zimmerman didn’t merely say “these assholes always get away.” Instead, he accuses George of saying the following:

      “Dear God, these assholes always get away, but not on me.”

      He also says that Zimmerman says “These shall be” (which he says sounds like a religious proclamation) simultaneously with poor, poor Trayvon Martin saying “I’m begging you.”

      Question – doesn’t “these shall be” sound a LOT like PLEASE HELP ME? Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that you can hear Trayvon Martin on the call (which the FBI didn’t seem to be able to hear), doesn’t “I’m begging you” sound a LOT like “I’MMA KILL YOU” when said by a young thugster who is engaged in beating the life out of someone? Remember that George said that Trayvon told him “You’re going to die tonight.” In the heat of the moment, George may have heard “I’MMA KILL YOU” and replayed that to police as “You’re going to die tonight.”

  3. Nice job Nettles:

    It seems that BDLR has to thread a very thin line in his opening arguments.

    If he accuses GZ of profiling, that should open the door to allowing evidence as to what GZ observed about TM’s behavior, and that should allow in evidence of TM’s prior behavior.

    If he portrays TM in an angelic posture, that should open the door for MOM/West do introduce evidence of non-angelic behavior.

    Or does it?

  4. I think the “bombshell” here is not whether there was one voice hollering or two, but all that stuff Reich seems to have found that Zimmerman is supposed to have said that nobody else had, as far as I know, previously heard, although he makes no mention of the “the keys are in my truck” or whatever that line was that so many think they can hear.

    I shall be curious to see if any other “experts” agree.

    Every time I think this case can’t get any more strange, sho nuff it does.

    Nice to see that both reports were prepared by people who know that “data R plural”.

    • Reich’s report is highly unprofessional, IMO. That doesn’t make it inadmissible, but it may not be as helpful to the state as Bernardo thinks it is. I make sport of politely, and without rancor, making opposing experts lose the point they were hired to make. Reich presents several big targets.

      • “Reich presents several big targets.”

        Could I persuade you to reveal them?

        Not arguing with you, but curious from a technical standpoint, having some audio background (of a different sort) myself.

        • A few …

          1) making unnecessary statements, like Zimmerman speaking in a “detective impression” and making a “seemingly religious proclamation,” and “reminiscent of an evangelical preacher or carnival barker.” He can omit that without disturbing his conclusions, and having it in undercuts the impression that he wants to leave, that he is clinical and unbiased.

          2) asserting conclusions without showing how he got there. This is the case with, I think, all of his conclusions about the words said, except the disctinction between “stop” and “help.” This expert goes far beyond voice recognition, and into word identification. He does this in spades in separating the simultaneous “These shall be”, a scream, and the woman caller’s voice.

          3) he is weak and equivocal in defining terms. Page 2, paragraph 6, “If a scream is defined in operational terms as …” If? Your the damned expert, define your terms!

          4) he admits the speech is difficult to understand. An expert is supposed to clarify the difficult and reach a reasoned conclusion using science that the layman may not quite grok. My remedy as his helpful editor, strike the statement “the speech is difficult to understand.”

          5) distractions – who cares if he analyzed the final scream first? It’s an irrelevant point.

          6) the assertion that Martin is physically undeveloped, etc. isn’t supported with evidence, and might be undercut by a medical analysis of the phuysical development of Martin. The expert has examplars of both voices, and he has the recorded calls. That’s all he needs to refer to.

          • Point #6 also jumped out at me, cboldt

            Why is Reich even talking about the ‘average’ male voice in such general terms when he has specific voice exemplars to work with…? When the range of adult male voices spans from Mike Tyson to the Oom Papa Mow Mow bass singer with the Oak Ridge Boys, the term ‘average’ is meaningless.

            That right there tells me that the actual voices don’t support the conclusion he is being paid to find.

      • I posted in the TL Forum, I think Reich’s conclusions as to defining words spoken from an unitelligble sample are inadmissible as not supported with accepted scientific basis. So, even if his voice ID methodology (audio spectrum analysis) is generally accepted (and I submit, that is NOT the question for admissibility in this case – the question for admissibility is whether or not there is scientifically accepted means to voice ID screams, in the open, through a phone line, recorded on 8kHz digital equipment, when the screams are mixed with other, louder sounds), his conclusions as to the words spoken has to be excluded.

    • unitron said May 14, 2013 at 10:11 am:
      “Every time I think this case can’t get any more strange, sho nuff it does.”
      I completely agree unitron. My question is What the he$$ ever happened to common sense? Hopefully the jury will have common sense and ignore ALL the so-called experts
      and their “opinion$” based on junk $cience.

      • When the eye witness, who went outside after hearing part the incident, told them to stop it, and that he was going to call 911, testifies that TM was on top of GZ, and had him pinned down, and saw him beating GZ, that should put to rest the guessing going on by the so called experts. It won’t take a high IQ for any of the jurors to doubt that the person on top, throwing the punches, wouldn’t be the one screaming for help. Of course BDLR will try to discredit the witness by saying that he changed his story after his original police testimony but, he never changed his story about TM being on top of GZ, and that he was throwing punches to GZ’s head. Of course GZ has the head injuries to prove that he was beaten.

        • pinecone – I agree, it’s not rocket science to figure out who was screaming especially while receiving a beat down, common sense should prevail.

          There are a lot of NUTJOBS voicing their opinion at the OS BLOG, I read, & sadly NOT for the first time:

          GZ injured himself when he hit his head on a sprinkler. You can’t make that crap up, the TM supporters comments reflect talking points picked up somewhere, maybe Leathermans I assume, nothing else makes sense except a lack of intelligence & ignorance.

    • Bombshell? An idiot getting paid to make a ridiculously absurd claim is not a bombshell. There are clear motivations to doing so too that extend past money.

      • I didn’t say bombshell, I said “bombshell”.

        The WTF factor in this guy’s report isn’t whose voice was saying what, it was all that stuff he hears Zimmerman saying that no one else has ever mentioned (not to mention his characterizations of those alleged utterences).

        • It’s almost all derivative of what some Traybots claim they can hear on the calls or other speculative theories. For example GZ had an accomplice and specifically someone was in the car with him that night. GZ decided they weren’t going to get away this time. GZ was all hyped up and eager for the kill (also combined with GZ was playing cop). The “It was God’s plan” statement from the Hannity show.

  5. If the FBI say it can’t be matched that’s good enough for me. Mr. O’Mara call the FBI audio guy to the stand on May 28th. Is he/she the expert that will give video testimony?

    • O’Mara’s audio expert isn’t the FBI. We don’t know who it is, yet, except they are not based in Florida.

    • Reich’s analysis of the voice(s) is almost more along the lines of him playing ‘human lie detector” than a valid attempt at voice indentification…

      If BDLR is allowed to open that door, O’Mara needs to get Paul Eckman (the inspiration for the show Lie To Me) to do an analysis of all the televised interviews of Chad, Brandy, Sybrina, Tracy, and Crump and point out where they are obviously lying based on their mannerisms.

      • I think Reich ends up being like Witness 8. He would do more damage to the state’s case if his testimony was admitted.

  6. Reich had access to Martin’s voice exemplars too. I think the highlighted report speaks for itself, but these are not the only experts who had access to Martin voice exemplars.

    • What a damn mess… or maybe I mean joke. So much money spent on “experts” when there is no such widely accepted expert in the field, and NOT ONE may even get on the stand. What is the latest on the evidentiary hearing?

      I am playing catch up so forgive my ignorance until I am up to date .

  7. just goes to show that any “expert” can be bought to say anything. any attorney knows that and i would wager that these jokers were paid thousands of dollars courtesy of FL taxpayers. what a great system we have!

        • Much to my chagrin, my twitter exchange with Matt Gutman contributed to the red herrings re: Serino. I still don’t understand what happened that night. (Originally a reply to Serino comments above. Hope it’s OK to add here since GutDude was being discussed.)
          What WAS that all about? Anybody?

          • I assume you were replying to me.
            Do you know mattG? why would he reveal his source to you? I personally do not believe it was Serino that leaked the sallyport cctv video. Do you?

            • No, I don’t know Matt Gutman. I had never even heard of him until he started reporting on the Trayvon-George incident. I was as surprised as anyone when he replied to my question. Like you, I couldn’t imagine him revealing a source. (I studied journalism and previously wrote a news column – not opinion/editorial – for a Florida newspaper.)

              Here is CTH blog post from when it happened:

              We took screenshots of other tweets addressed to him and there was none to be found that he could have been answering. VLPate, Kim, and several others should still have them. (My twitter account is suspended for the umpteenth time. No, I have no explanation for why.)

              As far as the video from inside the PD, I was told later that SPD had released it – but Gutman had the “exclusive” before anyone else did. If I recall correctly, his video appeared to be recorded from a monitor playing the video vs a copy of CCTV digital recording.

              • I said at the beginning is an enigma. He STILL IS. Does he play both ends from the middle or has he intentionally done and said what appears to be inconsistent? The moment of truth is fast approaching.

  8. I think Martin’s drug use is revelant to the issue of Zimmerman saying “Looks like he is on drugs or something” that infact, Martin was.

  9. Ooops Bernie, you screwed up big time. A few here yesterday pointed out that Bernie all but admitted that TM did have a history of drug use, school suspensions, gold teeth, and that he was in a fight, by asking Nelson to not allow that info at trial. Reading around the web today, the focus seems to be on that one motion, and the articles I’ve read list those items as well. I’m sure Bernie never meant for the nation to see who the real TM was, rather than the innocent little child walking with tea and skittles. Drudge has the article up so it will reach a very large audience.

    • I think that would be a good move. The combination of a Motion to Continue with the Motion to exclude expert testimony will pressure Nelson to choose between her schedule and allowing the experts. If she excludes the experts, then the schedule stands. I think she could deny both motions, too. O’Mara has experts lined up, although he has a point if his experts haven’t had time (or don’t have enough time) to analyze the state’s experts’ opinions, and compose rebuttal.

      • O’Mara also has to preserve an appeal record for Zimmerman, so asking for a delay in anticipation of the court accepting pseudoscience experts also helps in that regard.

    • This has become the curious case of the battling cries for help. Maybe both were crying help but they were taking turns. When Trayvon realized George was yelling louder and winning the help cry battle, he tried to get the gun and ALL battled ended.

    • Interesting read Captain. It was written in April 2012 and, a whole lot of discovery has been released since then. With the state filing the motion to hide all of his background, they in essence put his less than stellar background out there for all to see. They admitted that he was not the angel he has been portrayed as. Since Nelson ruled that all of TM’s records, school, social media, phone etc. were to be given to the defense, it will be interesting to see if she goes along with the state in not allowing any of the same info. at trial. My guess is that she will put it back on the defense and will ask them what info. they plan on using at trial which will only affirm that TM was a bad azz.

  10. Prosecution’s own experts say the final screams for help came from GZ: DISCUSSION
    While the evidence suggests that Mr. Martin produced the first two utterances and Mr. Zimmerman made the last two, the confidence level for these relationships is not very robust.
    Yet, conclusions of these low magnitudes are hardly surprising, given the limits and difficulty of the evaluation process. It is possible, of course, that more robust data could have been obtained if we had been supported in conducting two additional sets of procedures. The first of these procedures would have included comparative acoustic analyses of the listed U-K samples. The second would have been a perceptual experiment to compare the evidence recordings to an appropriately-sized samples of male speakers that were matched in age, gender, and linguistic background to, alternatively, Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. These two groups of speakers would produce utterances similar to those found on the 9-11 and exemplar recordings. The results of these procedures would have aided the undersigned in confirming or not confirming the findings reviewed above.
    The opinions to follow are based primarily on the aural-perceptual evaluations described
    above. As was stated, even though many problems were evident, the evidence recording
    provided minimum-to-marginal material for identification purposes. Moreover, the exemplar
    recordings contained enough material to permit a number of different judgments to be made.
    Based on the many analyses carried out, the undersigned had to conclude that, while there is
    evidence to suggest that Mr. Martin made the first two calls/cries (Nos. 1 and 8) and that Mr.
    Zimmerman made those identified as 14 and 16, none of these conclusions reached the criterion
    for a match. Neither speaker could be identified as being responsible for the others.
    Page 11 of 17 
    Finally, it must be conceded that the aural-perceptual method of speaker identification, while reasonably well organized and extensive in this case, is somewhat subjective in nature and, hence, the possibility of error exists. Nonetheless, the reported data can be defended on the basis of the rigorous procedures employed and, hence, the conclusions drawn can be viewed as reasonable.
    Respectively submitted,

  11. I wonder if MOM wants time to find out where this expert that’s echoing Traybot theories comes from rather than find an expert to rebut. Surely all the other experts involved would call BS on what this guy claims he hears.

    • Reich’s ‘analysis’ essentially just paraphrases many Traybot arguments. More than one person in the truck, GZ thought it was gods plan to kill TM, GZ was playing cop (adrenaline, ‘excitatory neurochemicals’, like enforcement officers experience), etc. I’m surprised he didn’t claim he heard a cockatoo.

    • Expert No. 1

      One of those experts is Alan R. Reich, and his answer is that he is certain he can hear a young man he concludes is Martin pleading for his life, from the start of the 45-second recording until the end.

      “I’m begging you,” he hears the younger of the two men yell as the recording begins.

      Twenty-six seconds later: “Help me.”

      In the last second before the gunshot: a high-pitched “Stop!”

      In an effort to find out what might be discerned from the crucial 911 call, The Washington Post retained Reich, 67, a former University of Washington professor with a doctorate in speech science who has worked for prosecutors and defense attorneys in hundreds of criminal and civil cases over a period of more than 35 years.

  12. Updated article at OS:

    Orlando defense attorney Richard Hornsby, who is not associated with the case, said the state must show the experts’ conclusions are based on methods “commonly accepted within their particular scientific or expert community” as reliable.

    WFTV-Channel 9 analyst Bill Sheaffer predicted the state would pass the test.

    Natalie Jackson, an attorney for Trayvon’s family, said she believes the state reports are consistent with each other, and that both voices can be heard in the background of the call.

    I scream bull chit at the OS for INCLUDING an opinion by Natalie Jackson. Nat Jack was the NUT JOB that proposed the 2 shot theory she & Crump promoted & Mary Cutcher, W-5 promoted the 2 shot theory in her Media Blitz with the group.

    imo, the OS can get QUALIFIED expert opinions and Legal Analyst that don’t have a vested interest to flap their gums and make a buck off this case at the expense of GZ.

    WHY are TM supporters so ANGRY over the SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH?

    • I wonder about this Bill Schaeffer character. Oh, nevermind. ABC affiliate. Put him in the bucket that Matt Gutman occupies. This is the network defending the “Zimmerman is guilty” territory they already staked out.

      • It was funny that during KC’s Trial, both Hornsby & Sheaffer were legal analyst for different networks. Hornsby, a lot younger than Sheaffer referred to Sheaffer as “Mr. Suspenders” in his blog comments & attacked Sheaffer frequently on outdated points of law. Sheaffer too, was a former prosecutor, Hornsby, a criminal defense attorney.

        Sheaffer works for WFTV, where most of the other Orlando legal analyst have a working legal practice, they are usually contacted by the Networks they contribute on for comment.

    • Sorry I don’t know how to post Twitter comments but Nat Jackson is posting this stuff:

      “No more tweets 2night bc after reading State’s audio expert reports, I’m 2 emotional & don’t have anything “lawyerly”or “impartial” 2 tweet.”

      “Audio analysts reports took me back 2 when 1st heard 911 call. I cried 4 days afterwards thinking abt my son & parents having to hear that.”

      “@TonyPipitone Also have SOLID M2 case w/all lesser included offenses (manslaughter, Agg. Bat…) 4 jury to pick fm that a M1 would preclude”

      • Even if the report were accepted as true, it states that the last screams were not Martin’s, so logically they would be gz’s. Certainly that would preclude any jury from convicting on any count beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Yet somehow Nat Jack views the report as completely in her favor. Or maybe she is distraught about her son and parents hearing, b/c then they will know what a fraud she is.

  13. FROM the OS article:

    The reports by Reich and Forensic Communication Associates show the state provided samples of Trayvon for the newly revealed analysis.
    This irks me to death, HOW MANY times has the DEFENSE ask for samples of TM’s voice when BDLR had it available for Reich? WHEN did BDLR turn over the voice sample to Reich?

  14. On Page 4/17 the analysts are describing the voice samples they have of Trayvon’s. Apparently they received 2 disks with video downloaded from Trayvon’s phone. When talking about what parts of the sample were useful in comparing them to the high stress yells you hear in the background of W11’s call, they write “For Martin, several of his high frequency laughs, exclamations and mocking utterances were employed”

    So on the sample Trayvon is heard mocking others?


    • Yeah. But your remark triggers another thought. The experts admit they cherry picked examples of Martin’s voice, so as to increase the likelihood of hearing a match. If Martin wasn’t in a “high frequency laugh exclamation or mocking” mode, the selected examples are inapplicable.

      How do the experts know that Martin’s voice was in “high frequency laugh, exclamation or mocking” mode? What would their results be if they used different examples of Martin’s voice for comparison to the 911 call?

      • Correct and they have to be matched with similar examplars of GZ’s voice in order to try to make a valid comparison.

    • Knowing what we know about who TM was at moment in time. I would be mildly surprised if any details about his life the last 6 months or so, had anything in it that could be considered positive.

      • “It will be interesting to see universe of media downloaded from TM’s phone.”

        It would be, if it ever is released to the public, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.

  15. It was obviously the state that sent the 911 tapes to the FBI, to analyze the voices, and they said that the quality was so bad that no determination was possible. Then you had the other two outfits that tried to analyze the voices, and they were rightfully cast aside, one for trying to sell his own equipment, the other for using his ears to determine who was screaming. Now, in Discovery release we have the two newest entities submitting reports, which the Fla. taxpayers are obviously paying for.

    When will the state stop going from one to the other, to the other until they get a report that supports their position? How many times does the state have to be told no until they finally accept no as the answer.

    • Right up until the day of trial, and even into it, if they can find what they are looking for. Mind you, they are looking for something that supports the conclusion that they wish to foist upon the court.

  16. Tom Owen needs to get his two stories straight. Which is it? A 50/50 chance it is Zimmerman? Or a 0% chance? Let’s look at Tom Owen’s website:

    STORY #1 – Using sophisticated voice match software, Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told the Sentinel that there was only a 48% chance that it was Zimmerman crying for help on the tape.

    STORY #2 – Usually, a positive match rates higher than 90%. “As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen said.

    How does that match against Owen’s peers? Let’s look on the web for some quotes!!

    QUOTES FROM A DIFFERENT CASE – 60% Similarity Indicates a very high probability of a match between the Unknown Voice Sample and the Exemplar (Known) Voice Sample.

    The ratio for that comparison is only 53.36%, somewhat short of the 60% expected for a positive match.

    Similarly, the Brynaert Known comparison to Stack Swat and Lee Known hover around 50%. This is an indication of similarity, but not a positive match.

    Conclusion: Considering all of the evidence presented, it is my expert forensic examiner opinion that it is probable that all voice samples come from the same person. Deviation from the expected can be explained by small sample lengths.

  17. Hypothetically, if all of the State’s motions were to be granted (not beyond the realm of possibility if Nelson’s history is in any way predictive), can O’Mara & West put up any kind of defense?
    Seems like Bernie & Mansei (or w/e the other guy from Corey’s office’s name is) are trying to hogtie the defense. No self-serving stmts from George, no opinions on whether his arrest was justified by him or his family, no mention about ANYTHING about Trayvon, no arguments on State’s failure to call DD or anyone else (Serino, SPD, Wolfinger, etc.), no toxicology reports, no social media, NO TEXTS <— very, very interesting, IMO.

    • I have not seen it mentioned here today, but all of these imo is to force GZ to testify. The prosecution has a problem with its evidence or lack thereof, so it is trying to minimize the avenues that the defense can use to defend GZ. Leaving GZ taking the stand as the only option to establish his innocence and the best chance for the prosecution to achieve a conviction.

  18. IRRESPONSIBLE REPORTING imo from Tony Pippitone on the short video!

    The expert audio testimony released on Tuesday is the most damaging for the defense if it is used in court.

    “That would lead me to believe that was an execution, that this was first degree murder,” said Local 6 legal analyst Luis Calderon.

    Calderon also said the experts’ scientific studies are also called into question.


    Buzz words like “execution” are outrageous and that’s all some TM supporters need to hear, they hit the blogs continuing to pollute the jury pool of the uninformed.

  19. Nettles. I am trying to establish what time I returned from the ER.. I know I made a post here as soon as I got home. Was this the first one I made?

    MAY 14, 2013 AT 2:47 AM
    Good morning.

    It took 10 cross stitches to close up a 4 ” long gash on my head that was also over 1.5 cm wide, revealing my damn skull but ALL is well now. I only need a definitive time line.

    Thank you.

    • “It took 10 cross stitches to close up a 4 ” long gash on my head that was also over 1.5 cm wide…”

      Recreating the incident?

      Sounds like a “getting your banged on the sidewalk” experiment that went horribly wrong.

      : – )

      • That’s it.. Thanks a lot. I was in that damn ER for 4 hours to get 10 stitches. That is all I wanted but yet they required several other stupid expensive features to run up the bill. I got into a fight with them like last time when I refused to stay over night and also to do XRays.

        This time it was over a shot. I have not had a shot since the military except for stand alone tetanus and they now mix diphtheria and other poisons. My 20 year old NEVER got any shots in school and the courts agreed with me about my position. i wanted to research the shot first at home. I ended up reading all they had … maybe a dozen pages before I let them stick me. Civilian hospitals do not like me but the VA is wonderful.

  20. Pingback: URL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s