It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording,

Did you completely ignore what was already posted????? It's hilarious that as more proof proves Z's guilty your conspiracy theories explode with stupidity. Take a look at what organization Owen is the Chair Emeritus of:

http://www.abreboard.us/

 

More than likely the prosecutor won't even use this result. All the defense has to do is point out that the voice was nearly a 50% match, therefore it could have been Zimmerman.

The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A nearly 50% match will bring some doubt into the equation.

The prosecution has to prove guilt. The defense only has to encourage a little doubt.

 

They did not conclude there is a 50% chance it isn't Zimmerman. Why be so blatantly dishonest?

 

Please learn what the results mean. The 48% match does not mean there is a 48% chance it is Z. The 48% match means there is over a 90% chance it is not Z. If that seems confusing it is because you do not know how voice ID works.

 

There are multiple conflicting accounts of what happened from start to finish. Your argument is invalid.

Not really, because for every witness who says it happened the way you are convinced it happened, there is at least one who says it happened differently.

Red herring logical fallacy and partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*). This has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan.

Unless you're one of the feds currently investigating this case, then you have no logical support for that claim. If you're claiming to be one of the feds investigating the case, I'd like to see some credentials please.

 

Considering Z already stated nobody else was around and the fact all the witnesses say those two are the only ones who were there, yes it is acceptable to say there is a 100% chance there are only two possible voices heard screaming.

 

What's hilarious is the complete ignorance of the law that so permeates the Leftninny minds here.


What is a "Chair Emeritus"? Sounds like some more madeup bullcrap, as opposed to the Chairman. ANd what bearing does that have on the LEGALLY ADMISSABLE FACTS/EVIDENCE of the CASE? Nothing. Got that? Nothing.

Once again, was Owens chosen by the COURT INVOLVED to provide "expert testimony", or is he just some nimrod hired by a NEWSPAPER, to desperately try to keep the Leftninny Media/Race Pimp created bullcrap alive?

Please provide the documentation citing Owens as the court appointed EXPERT WITNESS in this matter.

Until you can do that, try to get your so seriously struggling mind around the fact that, unless certified by the court in question, his OPINIONS are MEANINGLESS, no matter how foamy-mouthed you get about them.

Nothing funnier than Leftninnies trying to pretend ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF ...anything...

 

I was pointing out how that poster was putting others down for not using "logic" from his perspective. I was saying that people who preach about logic should be darn sure they have respectable logical reasoning skills themselves.

 

Owen has already been an expert witness in court for murder charges and successfully proved the defendant was the murderer using voice ID.

You say Chair Emeritus sounds "made up?" You should look up what it means because it proves Owen is more than qualified and has a prove record in court cases.

When will you stop whining about Owen and address the fact there is scientific certainty Z wasn't the one screaming?

 

None of the eyewitness testimonies contradict each other. They all help show what happened and along with the phone records, every single minute is accounted for. The fact you claim eyewitness accounts conflict only proves you do not know this case.

 

Wrong, there was at least one witness who said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, striking him. Again, like I said, for you to claim you "know this case" is simply dishonest. No one knows the case other than the investigators. The feds who are there still investigating. The only things about this case that you know are what you cherry pick from media propaganda. That's all you know about this case. Unless you can show me some federal credentials, your claim regarding how "well you know this case" means absolutely dick.

 

http://www.wsbt.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331,0,507044.story

48% match (roughly 50%) says it's not Zimmerman yelling... which, correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you'll try to correct me even if I'm right), but 100-48=52% that it IS Zimmerman yelling....

 

It doesn't matter. The minute that the 48% number comes out, it will bring doubt into the minds of the jurors. That is all that is needed.

If they could get a 90% match to Martin, then maybe it would be valuable - jurors could cling to that one. A number like 48% inspires doubt.

 

The witness saw Martin on top for a few seconds. His testimony helps prove Z lied in his statement to the police. The fact you are claiming his testimony both helps Z's claim and is contradictory to the other witnesses further proves you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Please go learn the known facts then come back so you can debate from an informed perspective.

 

that's a nice twisty way of trying to confuse it... but like was said, even if I accept that.... you're trying to convince 12 people that you're right.... and guess which guy is your average Florida juror member out of me and you.....


bwahahahahaha

 

Once again, was Owens chosen by the COURT INVOLVED to provide "expert testimony", or is he just some nimrod hired by a NEWSPAPER, to desperately try to keep the Leftninny Media/Race Pimp created bullcrap alive?

Please provide the documentation citing Owens as the court appointed EXPERT WITNESS in this matter.

Until you can do that, try to get your so seriously struggling mind around the fact that, unless certified by the court in question, his OPINIONS are MEANINGLESS, no matter how foamy-mouthed you get about them.


Sorry that you are incapable of grasping the complete lack of any legal standing in the Zimmerman case tnat your New Big Hero has....I'm bored of wasting bandwidth trying to get you past it.

Enjoy your hysteria...

 

oh really? You're the one promoting the court of public opinion.

 

You are absolutely positively freaking clueless on how this works. I've tried to explain it several times but you keep ignoring it.

For the last time, a 48% match does NOT translate in to a 48% chance it is Z. It proves there is no way it is Z.

 

The prosecution hast to prove to every one of those twelve jurors that Zimmerman is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

The defense only has to inspire a little doubt in a handful of them to win.

 

More worthless ad hominem attacks and pathetic strawmen fallacies from you. Truly worthless. I never claimed his testimony "helped Z," that's a blatant fabrication. I said that is contradictory to other witness testimony, which it is.

You're not the "guru" of this case, like I've said multiple times, the thing you keep ignoring, you are not one of the federal professionals investigating the case, therefore your claims that you know this case any better than anyone else is purely laughable and just plain stupid. You know JUST AS MUCH as anyone else who has been subjected to biased media coverage and propaganda, media which does not reveal the "facts," only speculation where there should be none. For you to continue to claim you "know this case" is just ignorant narcissism.

 

Owen is an expert and has used his expertise in murder trials already, but you want to call him a "Nimrod" if he wasn't appointed by a court for this case. So by your logic he would be a Nimrod before and after the trial and only an expert during the trial.

I know you hate the evidence but good grief man......your desperation is unbelievable.

 

I expect the audio and voice specialist from FBI, DOJ and Florida investigation wil decide that issue and not us bloggers. Funny, the Martin Dad stated it was not Marting calling for help in the beginning. Anyone not surprised they are changing their story?

 

Yes, unfortunately some ignorant narcissists are entirely convinced that they "know this case inside and out" and can say one way or another what happened, even though they're not part of one of the departments tasked with investigating this case.

 

that's a half truth...

he said he couldn't tell initially and when it was cleared up he said it was his son...the sound was muffled as it was filtered through a window into a phone receiver into a recording device.

 

Pointing out your claims prove you do not know this case is not an ad hom. Go learn what that means before complaining about it.

I don't know every single detail but I know what happened from start to finish because every single minute is accounted for by witnesses and phone records. I guarantee nobody else on here knows the case better than I do. Ask me any question about it or ask me to explain anything that creates doubt in your mind Z is guilty.