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

ummm, genious, there is no trial.....

 

Nope and the copper's got the dad on tape in living color and audio denying it was his son yelling help.

 

Do you think he would walk into court and simply say 48% and walk out? Or is it possible he would explain what 48% means and that it should not be confused with thinking there is a 48% it is Z screaming?

You could compare a lot of screams to the 911 tape and come up with 48% by people who were on the other side of the world when the shooting happened. Would you claim there is a 48% chance the screaming belonged to someone who was 10,000 miles away?

 

Where is the link for that?

 

Yes it is. It's a direct (and incorrect) attack against my knowledge base rather than my argument.

Apparently your position needs to learn what the ad hominem is, because you've invoked it so many freaking times in this thread here.

Understatement of the century.

Overstatement of the century.

Sorry, that last response of mine was actually incorrect, THIS was the overstatement of the century.

Your argument is based on ignorant narcissism. I'm not going to indulge you by "asking you a question." You know nothing about this case other than the media propaganda which everyone else has equal access to. You are not a professional involved with one of the departments who have access to ALL the details of the case. Your argument is therefore based on dishonesty and ignorant narcissism.

 

You tried claiming Owen is not an expert. When it is proven he is an expert you suddenly forgot you claimed he wasn't an expert....

 

Did you read the last section of the OP article? Even it mentions the "CSI Effect". Any percentages that low will inspire doubt, no matter how much experts try to explain how sure it is.

Remember jurors are fairly average people. Several people posting here doubt the results because of the 48%, regardless of what the rest of the article says. What makes you think the jurors would be any different?

 

You don't have the balls to back up your accusations and that was expected. Attacking the fact you do not know the facts very well is attacking your argument. You are claiming it is still too foggy to know what happened and that is completely dishonest and dumb.

 

That's what I'm trying to point out.... no way Zimmerman's lawyer can't chew that 48% up and spit it out


I did a fairly good layman job of twisting up whatever stats you put up there already.... and that's not to say that there aren't "experts" out there that will disagree with the original's assessment.

 

He referenced the CSI effect in the context of a case lacking other evidence. In this case there is no one piece that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but adding all the pieces together shows Z lied.

Also, the importance of the voice ID could be emphasized by having three experts state it is not Z screaming. Sonner will have a very hard time finding experts to contradict the conclusion. In a high profile case like this, professionals do not want to go on record unless they are absolutely certain of their conclusions lest their reputations and credibility get crushed.

People are over looking an obvious explanation to the screaming because what is there to prevent both of them asking for help at different times in the struggle?

 

I know that you haven't a clue what the word "evidence" means, as opposed to random data; you continue to prove just that.

Owens claims are nothing more than a newspaper story. and have no legal standing, as evidence , or otherwise, in the Zimmerman case.

The fact that this crucial, obvious FACT continues to elude you, is a source of great amusement for the rest of us.

It makes no difference what OTHER "trials" Owens has been involved with; his newspaper article is MEANINGLESS.

Please continue to obtusely pretend otherwise; we are enjoying the laughter, as you continue to boast of Your Great Knowledge of The Case, while completely ignorant of such an obvious Truth.

It's hilarious.

"Desperation"?

"Desperation" is being so insecure that one has to keep telling everyone How Much One KNows, because NO ONE is getting that from his/her posts.

 

BS he'll have a hard time. We had a medical examiner determine a high profile case 4 years ago rule one way... was politically pressured and REMOVED from his position, and replaced with another doctor who said completely opposite after the exhumed the dead body and tested again. A 3rd doctor confirmed what the first one said.


any side can find an "expert" that knows how to play ball.

 

You didn't twist up any stats. You are so unbelievably ignorant about this you actually claimed the test meant there is only a 52% chance it was Martin screaming.

This test isn't the only evidence proving it wasn't Z screaming. Have you guys forgot about the witnesses stating it was Trayvon they heard? The witness "John" said Z asked him for help but this was before the 911 call was made recording the screaming.

 

I never claimed the expert's results do have a legal standing. I said the experts proved it wasnt Z. Next strawman.

 

What high profile case was it?

 

Martin Lee Anderson

 

Oh I do. You, on the other hand, don't have the intellect necessary to distinguish your propaganda laced position from the fact that you don't know nearly as much about anything regarding this case as you claim to.

Wrong, attacking my argument and attacking me are two completely different things, but I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference. Explaining something to you is no different than attempting to explain something to a brick wall.

I'm claiming that you're not one of the professionals tasked with finding out what happened, and that the only information you have is crap and propaganda which you've regurgitated primarily from the liberal biased mainstream medai. Where are your sources? Can you post where you got the information from? MSNBC, CNN, etc., no doubt. To be honest, that's probably giving you too much credit, your sources are probably all liberal opinion blogs, you just copy and paste bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from those as if it can be taken as fact. The fact of the matter is that the investigation is ongoing. Leave the "fact-gathering" and "fact-analysis" to the professionals. That's all I'm saying, but again, you're likely to get butthurt because your position of ignorant narcissism is being challenged by a far more intellectual and logical position ("leave the fact analysis to the pros") than yours. But since you are incapable of discussing this issue without resorting to ad hominem bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and since your position is so dimwitted and arrogant to think that you know MORE than professionals who are still doing work on investigating the case down in Florida, there's no way you can be reasoned with. I'm no longer going to indulge your position of idiocy.

 

Without LEGAL STANDING, your "expert's" OPINION, is just that, and that is no strawman, it is correctly pointing out that not only is Owens' test quite disputable (did he have the ORIGINAL 911 recording, or a DEGRADED ONE, from, say, the internet? Ooops!), in addition to being nothing but ONE person OPINING.

He "PROVED" nothing. He GUESSED,and admits it; you seem to be oblivious of PERTINENT DETAILS in your rush to Proclaim the Official Trayvonite Position, of which you have , apparently, made yourself the Arbiter, based, no doubt, on Your Great Knowledge of the Case, Which Exceeds All Others' .

You need to discover what a "strawman" is, as well as what "proved" means...meanwhile...keep it up; as I said, the laughs are wonderful, Oh Great and Powerful Knower of the Real Truth in the Zimmerman Case...

 

In todays world, everything is taped and most of all the Cop's interviews and actions.

 

wow just how many people did he shoot that night

 

You tried to ignore the conclusions in part by saying they have no legal standing. Nobody said they have legal standing. That was your strawman.

Why is Owen's test disputable? Not liking his conclusion does not negate the fact he produced scientific evidence it is not Z screaming. You are also ignoring the fact another expert used a different technique and arrived at the same conclusion. Two different experts confirm it wasn't Z but keep closing your eyes and wishing it away.......

 

You claimed Trayvon's dad is on video saying it wasn't Trayvon screaming. Now produce the link or admit you lied. Since we both know there is no link and you don't have what it takes to be honest, feel free to ignore this post because no sense in continually advertising your shameless dishonesty.

 

All that whining for nothing. I know this case because unlike you and most people in your camp, I've read every piece of info I could find on it and can explain what happened start to finish. That isn't being arrogant. The arrogance here is your constant shrill of doing everything but discussing the subject. Obviously you don't know what happened so just ask what you need filled in on and I can help you out. Or continue your pointless pontificating.......

 

It was really freaking stupid to rule the death as natural knowing it was chemically induced from ammonia. That was your comparison??????? The sheer low level quality of people defending Z is amazing.

 

So you say Zimmerman is lying about who screamed but he is credible about how many people were around? Then you say there was witnesses but no one else was around. How could there have been witnesses if no one else was near?