GZ Case - Defense Perspective

[LambChop]

According to the expert:



This would be my question to the expert. (Picture me as O'Mara)

"Ok, Mr. Expert, now you say that you compared GZs scream to his speaking voice, and it returned a 48% match.

Is it possible that the low match could be attributed to the fact that you are using a scream to compare to normal speach?

Is your software designed to compare screams to normal speach?

Do you have tests that show the effectiveness of comparing a scream to normal speach?

Is it possible that comparing TMs normal speaking voice to the recorded scream could also result in a low percentage match?"

As for the expert that only uses his ears for comparison, I can't believe that he has ever testified in court based on what he hears.

I'm no expert but doesn't it have to do with pitch. A 28 year old man usually has a lower pitch to their voice and they did have the 911 call to use. I listened and I hear someone young in fear of their life. Right before the shot goes off. I would not think that GZ would be screaming in such a high pitched voice right before he is pulling that trigger. I would think he'd be yelling stop or I'll shoot. That screaming is someone who knows they are about to die. No juror would ever think anything differently. It's unforgetable. jmo

 

[Karmady]

I think the depraved indifference might come from the fact that GZ pursued TM. And that he knew he was not suppose to have the gun on him if he "decided" to follow TM. Also the indifference could be because GZ had the gun and followed he put the lives of everyone in the condos in danger. How far would that bullet have traveled if they were fighting for the gun and it went off in a different direction than TM? If it shatters on impact could the bullet fragments would have hit a number of people within a home???

I do know my husband said his greatest fear was some do gooder who would decide to take the law into their own hands that would end up costing an innocent person or an officer their life. It was a problem 40 years ago and it's still a problem for LE today. JMO

I know what you're saying, but I don't think "depraved indifference" is the right standard under the Florida Murder 2 statute. I do know the term. As I mentioned, that's what my fingers automatically typed until I remembered my earlier posts. Then when I checked Florida law, it was definitely "depraved mind." So I think the standard quoted in the case in my post will be the jury charge. jmo.

 

[Karmady]

This is tough, since we don't have much to go on at this point..

re BBM

Could 1/3 be related to GZ having a weapon, with 'possible' harm coming not only to TM, but to others in the complex?

2- spite? for the ones that got away

:waitasec:

I think the real issue will be 2, and I think it would have to be ill-will or spite for the expletives who got away. I think that will be the case the State will be trying to make. I also think they thought they had a better case for 2 until they had to substitute punks for the racial slur. jmo

 

[vlpate]

According to the expert:



This would be my question to the expert. (Picture me as O'Mara)

"Ok, Mr. Expert, now you say that you compared GZs scream to his speaking voice, and it returned a 48% match.

Is it possible that the low match could be attributed to the fact that you are using a scream to compare to normal speach?

Is your software designed to compare screams to normal speach?

Do you have tests that show the effectiveness of comparing a scream to normal speach?

Is it possible that comparing TMs normal speaking voice to the recorded scream could also result in a low percentage match?"

As for the expert that only uses his ears for comparison, I can't believe that he has ever testified in court based on what he hears.

Not to mention he said it was the voice of a "young man". GZ is only 28.

 

[vlpate]

O/T - I wish Google would exclude the news search results for sites that require payment for access.

I think it's going to be a trend, but thankfully, anything newsworthy is copied over a gazillion sites.

 

[mommakk51]

O/T - I wish Google would exclude the news search results for sites that require payment for access.

If you mean like Orlando Sentinel, when the subscription box comes up, I just hit that green X and close it out. It still let's me read the articles. Been seeing that subscription box for 2 months now.. lol.

 

[Phoenixfla]

O/T 12 Angry Men on in a few minutes on TCM. Old version with Henry Fonda.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I'm no expert but doesn't it have to do with pitch. A 28 year old man usually has a lower pitch to their voice and they did have the 911 call to use. I listened and I hear someone young in fear of their life. Right before the shot goes off. I would not think that GZ would be screaming in such a high pitched voice right before he is pulling that trigger. I would think he'd be yelling stop or I'll shoot. That screaming is someone who knows they are about to die. No juror would ever think anything differently. It's unforgetable. jmo

I, also, am not an expert but I do want to point out that "typically," "usually," and other such words shouldn't have any bearing on this case. Could you imagine the expert's response when Mr. O'Mara questions him on the usage of words "usually" or "typically" ? My experience shows that these words are nit-picked on against witnesses. I imagine the reasonable doubt would come from this question:

Mark O'Mara: Have you examined/tested my client's range of tones?

Also, we have to keep in mind that whoever screamed, whether it be Trayvon or Zimmerman, did so under the impression that their life was in danger. Even if you were to recreate the scene and have everything set up to exacting measures, you would not be able to recreate the fear in that person's mind and voice.

Short: I think the witness(es) testimony on who screamed speaks louder than any expert could attest to.

 

[LambChop]

I, also, am not an expert but I do want to point out that "typically," "usually," and other such words shouldn't have any bearing on this case. Could you imagine the expert's response when Mr. O'Mara questions him on the usage of words "usually" or "typically" ? My experience shows that these words are nit-picked on against witnesses. I imagine the reasonable doubt would come from this question:

Mark O'Mara: Have you examined/tested my client's range of tones?

Also, we have to keep in mind that whoever screamed, whether it be Trayvon or Zimmerman, did so under the impression that their life was in danger. Even if you were to recreate the scene and have everything set up to exacting measures, you would not be able to recreate the fear in that person's mind and voice.

Short: I think the witness(es) testimony on who screamed speaks louder than any expert could attest to.

The witness did not say who was screaming. The witness said GZ had called to him for help. The screaming was heard on the 911 calls right before the shot. I do believe GZ called for someone to help him get TM off of him. I also believe once TM saw that gun it was him screaming. Because TM was found lying "face down" I also believe he was trying to get up and away from GZ when he was shot because GZ had no blood on him. jmo

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Austin's mother, Sheryl Brown, said that the trauma from the night has not been limited to what her son witnessed. It also includes the way she says that the police and some media have twisted his account of the night to fit a self-defense theory, to say that a 13-year-old witness has claimed Zimmerman, and not Martin, was screaming for help. Both Austin and his mother are adamant that the teen could not see who was screaming, but they believe now that it was Martin.

Brown said in hindsight she feels the police investigator on the case attempted to lead her son to provide information that he didn't have. The investigator, she said, would nod yes when asking if it was the man in the T-shirt, who turned out to be Zimmerman, and not the one in the hooded sweatshirt, Martin, who was screaming out for help. And while the police have said that they don't have any evidence to refute Zimmerman's claims of self-defense, the investigators had a different story when they visited her family about a week after the shooting, Brown said.

"That investigator said flat out that we don't think it was self-defense," Brown said, recalling the day the police came to interview Austin. "Several times he said, 'I have kids, and I'm going to tell you something that I don't tell many people.' He looked at me and said, 'You have to read between the lines. There's some stereotyping going on.'"

She continued: "He stood here in my family room telling me that this guy [Zimmerman] is not right and it wasn't self-defense and that they have to prove that it wasn't. He was adamant about that. I don't know if that was to make me less uncomfortable or to make us feel that he was on our side."

In recent days, other witnesses have come forward to say that the police attempted to twist their testimony to support Zimmerman's claims of self-defense or ignored them entirely, including two witnesses who joined the Martin family during a press conference on Friday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-killing-yo_n_1355795.html

Justice for Trayvon Martin

 

[AJ Noiter]

The witness did not say who was screaming. The witness said GZ had called to him for help. The screaming was heard on the 911 calls right before the shot. I do believe GZ called for someone to help him get TM off of him. I also believe once TM saw that gun it was him screaming. Because TM was found lying "face down" I also believe he was trying to get up and away from GZ when he was shot because GZ had no blood on him. jmo

I could have sworn I watched a video of a man, who refused to be shown on camera the day after the shooting, stating that "the man in red," was screaming. Zimmerman was wearing red. Of course, this is just speculation, the police reports will show what the witness(es) said specifically when they're officially released.

If what your saying is true then I still don't see it being much for the prosecution as per the recent SYG case that was dismissed in Miami where a man chased a burglar for a block before stabbing him to death (I'll cite a source at the end of this reply). From it I get the impression that once SYG is applicable it can't be revoked just because the offender decides to change their course of action. I hope my explanation makes sense, it's a bit difficult to get exactly what I mean in words with this. I know there's nothing specifically in the law itself that says actions must be taken within a given period of time, but being realistic I know that had the man waited 10 minutes after finding the burglar he would probably still be facing charges.

I also want to state that I am not for or against Mr. Zimmerman. I will not decide until discovery is complete and I have reviewed everything I can.

https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-wa...judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense
Note: I do not agree or disagree with the above site's views, it was just the first source that came up in my google search, there are others to choose from if you like.

Edit: I'm trying to find the video I mentioned above, if I do find it I will post a link to it here.

You can see the video here, and from what he's saying you can come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is the one heard yelling because he says that the shot was fired before he was able to get upstairs. That, at least to me, says that the gunshot was a very short time after Zimmerman was yelling for help as per this man's story.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...n-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Again, I do not necessarily agree with the above site, I am just linking it for the witness's words only.

 

[elementary]

I could have sworn I watched a video of a man, who refused to be shown on camera the day after the shooting, stating that "the man in red," was screaming. Zimmerman was wearing red. Of course, this is just speculation, the police reports will show what the witness(es) said specifically when they're officially released.

If what your saying is true then I still don't see it being much for the prosecution as per the recent SYG case that was dismissed in Miami where a man chased a burglar for a block before stabbing him to death (I'll cite a source at the end of this reply). From it I get the impression that once SYG is applicable it can't be revoked just because the offender decides to change their course of action. I hope my explanation makes sense, it's a bit difficult to get exactly what I mean in words with this. I know there's nothing specifically in the law itself that says actions must be taken within a given period of time, but being realistic I know that had the man waited 10 minutes after finding the burglar he would probably still be facing charges.

I also want to state that I am not for or against Mr. Zimmerman. I will not decide until discovery is complete and I have reviewed everything I can.

https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-wa...judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense
Note: I do not agree or disagree with the above site's views, it was just the first source that came up in my google search, there are others to choose from if you like.

Edit: I'm trying to find the video I mentioned above, if I do find it I will post a link to it here.

You can see the video here, and from what he's saying you can come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is the one heard yelling because he says that the shot was fired before he was able to get upstairs. That, at least to me, says that the gunshot was a very short time after Zimmerman was yelling for help as per this man's story.

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...n-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Again, I do not necessarily agree with the above site, I am just linking it for the witness's words only.

I am waiting on the discovery that the defence seems in no way to be anxious to see. I am betting the discovery will show GZ for the liar that he is. Meanwhile, MOM handily rakes in the cash. IMO.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I am waiting on the discovery that the defence seems in no way to be anxious to see. I am betting the discovery will show GZ for the liar that he is. Meanwhile, MOM handily rakes in the cash. IMO.

Kind of a red herring, but neither Zimmerman nor O'Mara have access to that fund directly. Zimmerman was given an amount of 30% of the total amount transferred from paypal to live on for "the next few months."

You can find more on it here: http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pr...s-regarding-the-george-zimmerman-defense-fund

Also, as stated in my previous post, I haven't decided which direction to go either, and won't until discovery allows me to view all of the information. I suspect that to be soon, as I think Mr. O'Mara continued discovery today or late yesterday. I say that because the post informing people why he was delaying has been removed from the site mentioned above. To add to this topic specifically, I'd say I agree that the witness information needed to be redacted before going to the public.

 

[vlpate]

I could have sworn I watched a video of a man, who refused to be shown on camera the day after the shooting, stating that "the man in red," was screaming. Zimmerman was wearing red. Of course, this is just speculation, the police reports will show what the witness(es) said specifically when they're officially released.
<respectfully snipped>
You can see the video here, and from what he's saying you can come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is the one heard yelling because he says that the shot was fired before he was able to get upstairs. That, at least to me, says that the gunshot was a very short time after Zimmerman was yelling for help as per this man's story.
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...n-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Again, I do not necessarily agree with the above site, I am just linking it for the witness's words only.

There is also the 13 yr. old boy who was walking his dog that said he saw someone in red on the ground screaming, alone. His mother says the police tried to trip him up on the color of the shirt, but as you can clearly see, he says the same thing, that the shirt was red, in his own words even after his mother makes her statement to media.

March 15
"That jibes with what Cheryl Brown's teenage son witnessed while walking his dog that night. Thirteen-year-old <modsnip> stepped out his front door and heard people fighting, he told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday.

"I heard screaming and crying for help," he said. "I heard, 'Help me.' "

It was dark, and the boy did not see how the fight started, in fact, he only saw one person, a man in a red shirt — Zimmerman — who was on the ground.

March 17 - Mother says Police twisted her son's words
<modsnip> mother, Sheryl Brown, said that the trauma from the night has not been limited to what her son witnessed. It also includes the way she says that the police and some media have twisted his account of the night to fit a self-defense theory, to say that a 13-year-old witness has claimed Zimmerman, and not Martin, was screaming for help. Both Austin and his mother are adamant that the teen could not see who was screaming, but they believe now that it was Martin.

And yet, 10 days later, he tells Guttman the same thing:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVMZs4X90Q&feature=related"]Brown, eyewitness March 27 Interview[/ame]

If he really didn't see anything that night, why did he continue to repeat the same story?
.

 

[AJ Noiter]

There is also the 13 yr. old boy who was walking his dog that said he saw someone in red on the ground screaming, alone. His mother says the police tried to trip him up on the color of the shirt, but as you can clearly see, he says the same thing, that the shirt was red, in his own words even after his mother makes her statement to media.

<snipped for length>

If he really didn't see anything that night, why did he continue to repeat the same story?
.

I was not aware of this, shows what I get for distrusting media to the point of not even looking at it. Thanks!

 

[Nova]

Was it depraved mind or depraved indifference? I think there is a difference. jmo

I believe they are the same. "Depraved indifference" is the term in California (among some other states), so we hear it a lot in TV shows and films. But it means the same thing: that the killer committed an act s/he should have known was likely to cause the death of another (but without forming a conscious intent to cause that death). Personally, I think the word "indifference" is helpful to laypeople, but maybe that's just me.

Neither term has anything to do with "depravity" as we use it outside the courtroom, as I'm sure you know.

CORRECTION: the requirement in California is actually phrased "malice aforethought", but means the same thing. I can tell you from experience that the legal term "malice" is really a stumbling block for some jurors.

According to the following site, "depraved indifference" is New York's way of expressing the same concept:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/depraved-indifference/

 

[Nova]

Funny you mention that b/c I initially searched and typed a post about depraved indifference, all for naught lol. The quote I posted is from a Florida murder 2 case and that is the standard. I also recall having posted using the words depraved mind and heart, so I think it is the correct standard.

That said, depraved indifference, according to my now deleted draft post, almost never applies in a one-on-one shooting, stabbing, etc. If you google "depraved indifference" and "example" you should come up with a 2011 NY case (can't remember the name - State v. Parker, maybe) talking about it.

Either way, it's a stretch here, imo.

Karmady, I was a juror in a 2nd degree murder case involving a one-on-one stabbing. If such charges are rare, I think it's because most prosecutors figure they can prove intent when somebody pulls a trigger or stabs with a knife, so they shoot for 1st degree.

But in "my" trial, the facts were similar to the Zimmerman/Martin case in that the killing occurred in the midst of a chaotic argument. I think (IANAL) the law recognizes that someone might use a weapon during such chaos without actually forming an intent to kill.

 

[Nova]

According to the expert:



This would be my question to the expert. (Picture me as O'Mara)

"Ok, Mr. Expert, now you say that you compared GZs scream to his speaking voice, and it returned a 48% match.

Is it possible that the low match could be attributed to the fact that you are using a scream to compare to normal speach?

Is your software designed to compare screams to normal speach?

Do you have tests that show the effectiveness of comparing a scream to normal speach?

Is it possible that comparing TMs normal speaking voice to the recorded scream could also result in a low percentage match?"

As for the expert that only uses his ears for comparison, I can't believe that he has ever testified in court based on what he hears.

Yes, I know all that and I don't see how it changes what I posted.

My point was that either (a) there are tapes of TM's voice and comparisons will be tested; or (b) the prosecution will argue that since GZ does not provide a match, a reasonable person much conclude that TM was screaming. (There are witnesses that say only two people were at that spot.)

Of course, the defense will almost certainly have to attack the tests, since they don't help GZ' credibility.

 

[Nova]

This is tough, since we don't have much to go on at this point..

re BBM

Could 1/3 be related to GZ having a weapon, with 'possible' harm coming not only to TM, but to others in the complex?

2- spite? for the ones that got away

:waitasec:

I don't think part 2 is such a hurdle. Yes, the DA could argue racial animus on GZ's part, but it would be a lot easier to argue that GZ was angry that "the a--holes always get away." Easier because they have GZ' own words on tape.

 

[vlpate]

Well we can respectfully agree to disagree. A normal civilized person would have opened his car window and ask Trayvon why he was in that community and that would have been the end of it.

I don't know that I would open my window to someone staring at me and circling my car to ask them if they belong there. Someone who belongs there would be on their way to the house.

A silent not uniformed stranger in an unmarked car is scary IMO to a 17 year old kid.

Probably 99% of the people and cars he saw walking the mile to, and the mile back from the store fit that description, so why circle GZ's?

But GZ was hell bent to ensnare himself an imaginary burglar and look good to LE.
He was probably hoping to catch Trayvon in a breaking and entering act. Informing Trayvon that he was a NW guy would throw a monkey wrench in that plan. All IMO.,

There's no history to support this. In the calls he made to LE to report suspicious males within the community he never once tried to take the law into his own hands...in fact, he wanted to remain anonymous.

JMO

Brought over from injury thread.