Posted on 03/31/2012 4:44:41 PM PDT by Krankor
Or that the ABC reporter just didn't understand the meaning of the documents, and did not bother to ask about it.
According to Tracy Martin, the Sanford police recounted this sequence of events: Trayvon Martin walked up to Zimmerman’s vehicle and asked why he was following him. Zimmerman denied following the youth and rolled up the car window. Minutes after Trayvon walked away, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.
Surely that would be on the 911 tape where Zimmerman says Martin is "checking me out"? But I don't hear it. Why would Zimmerman make that up - he had to know his call was being recorded? Or, why would the cops make that up - to get dad to back down? How's that working?
The Orlando Sentinel contacted the voice identification experts. Both determined it was not George Zimmerman who called for help. Using different methods they took all the screams, put those together, and cut out everything else. You can listen to the extracted screams at the Sentinel’s site.
I didn't find the audio. I found a transcript.
-- Why would Zimmerman make that up --
Why would Tracy Martin make up or misunderstand what he was told by the police? This is not the only incidence of Tracy misunderstanding what the police told him.
-- The Orlando Sentinel contacted the voice identification experts. --
The Orlando Sentinel is invested in preserving its narrative, not in getting to the truth. That said, the experts are running against their own test protocol, which tells them the evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion.
Well said. To add: most Freepers can smell a left-wing con job the same way. This whole thing smelles just like the Duke laCross case, except the prosecutor hasn’t volunteered to be Nifong...
It is a proven and admitted (by Armitage) fact that it was Richard Armitage who “leaked” Plame’s status, but you know that. Not that the turd Plame was worth one iota more than her self-aggrandizing.
That was a travesty of justice, and it angers me to this day. I contributed to his defense fund, and Bush should have pardoned him completely. I supported George W. Bush in many (but not all) aspects, and his declination to do this was an act of political cowardice which still rankles me.
Libby should have never been in front of that Grand Jury, it was a fishing expedition looking for scalps or someone to “frog march” out of the White House. The bastards got his. I hate them for that.
Yes. But that's not relevant to the issue at Libby's trial. The question at Libby's trial was, at the time he gave testimony to the investigators, did he know Plame worked at the CIA.
The question and evidence about telling reporters was adduced to get to the root question, did he know Plame worked at the CIA?
As far as leakers go, it is possible for there to be multiple leakers. IF (and this wasn't) the leak was of protected information, the fact that one person leaks it does not immunize everybody else.
-- Libby should have never been in front of that Grand Jury --
That was a political calculation by Bush, to appoint a special prosecutor. If Libby had come clean up front, Bush and Cheney would have had good information, and could have made a different decision how to handle the situation.
Anyway, I don;t want to rehash the case. We're both entrenched, and I don;t want to diminish any goodwill you might have toward me on account of this disagreement.
I just watched a FoxNews report that referenced the subject article of this thread. Reporter stated experts concluded person crying out for help “could not be Zimmerman” but rather was a young boy. The reporting on this shooting has been horrible. I’ve delt personally with reporters before and they often get minor details a little wrong but this is crazy.
Reports that Trayvon was a truant, a thug, and a drug-dealing pothead have been floating across this site for days. My question is, so what? Smoking marijuana and playing hooky doesn’t mean he didn't have the right to cross the street without being stalked and killed by a grown man. The idea that Trayvon's death is somehow less tragic because he may not have been the squeaky-clean boy next door is ludicrous. The attempts to demonize Trayvon are all too similar to attempts to smear rape victims. The fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie is irrelevant, just as irrelevant as it would be to point out that a woman was wearing a miniskirt before someone raped her. Our law does not reserve justice for "perfect victims”.
Because the Sanford Police Department reportedly made a number of missteps immediately after Trayvon's murder, it may be difficult to find out the truth. Some witnesses say they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. Others saw Zimmerman straddling Trayvon, hands pressed against the teen's back. Even these witness accounts don't prove the case one way or another. A struggle took place before Trayvon's death, but that certainly doesn't mean that Trayvon initiated the struggle.
Whatever ...
Very well stated, and thank you!
The story is Bull snot.
i was subscribing to the Orlando Sentinel & Fish-wrap but No Mas!
It is so leftist their offices should be 50 miles west of Tampa. if you believe anything in this rag you are not using your gray matter.
By the way the are offering new deals on how to fleece the public;
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-orlando-sentinel-digital-memberships-letter,0,4485751.htmlstory
Travyon Martin Shooting Death Prompts Calls for Justice Department Inquiry - Lizette Alvarez - NYTimes.com - March 16, 2012
Frustration also grew after the parents said they had been told by detectives that Mr. Zimmerman had a "squeaky clean" record. They knew this, the detectives said, because Mr. Zimmerman told them.This was addressed early on, by the Sanford Police. Zimmerman - Martin Shooting FAQ (20 kB PDF file)
Why was George Zimmerman labeled as "squeaky clean" when in fact he has a prior arrest history?In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be "squeaky clean". We are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information.
I consider it typical. I don't trust anything the media says, at face value. If the issue is important to you, look for original source materials. Develop the ability of separating reporter opinion (99.9% of "news" content) from fact. Know that the residual "fact" that has been provided is incomplete, cherry-picked, and otherwise manipulated in presentation so that it loses the context it was in, in fact.
-- I've delt personally with reporters before and they often get minor details a little wrong but this is crazy. --
I've dealt with them too. They are worse than lawyers and politicians, and that's going pretty low.
I wouldn’t worry about that. Your posts are well reasoned and well stated. I don’t have a problem with disagreement, and I understand your viewpoint on this perfectly.
It has become emotional rather than rational with me at this point.
Thanks for all that. One of the things that can get frustrating is trying to explain what the issue is, and how the law works, etc., to a person who doesn't understand, or carves out an imaginary exception, etc. That's why I usually say it once, make sure I've expressed my idea clearly enough, then move on. It is not my goal to change minds, rather, it is simply to share mine and how I got it.
Well, you haven't presented anything factual to back up your opinion. I always thought the prosecutor was the one who had to prove the guilt of the defendant.
Also, have you factored in legal changes such as Stand Your Ground in making your determination?
Well, that’s your problem. There’s no need to correct all errors, lies and etc. on the forum - people will generally figure out the details that matter, even faced with posts that misrepresent the source material.
You are right. I’m not even any kind of authority on this story. I just pick up on the very blatantly ridiculous things some people say. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for you, and for others that keep right on top of this story.
The death of an unarmed individual by someone carrying a gun is plenty of probably cause. If stand your ground applies, it more than likely applies for Treyvon. Furthermore, because Zimmerman followed Treyvon after being told not to puts him in a position that he will probably be unable to avail himself of standard self-defense OR stand your ground.
I prosecuted several similar cases in Fairfax. I had one with two brothers where one killed the other after being jumped. Got a voluntary manslaughter conviction.
The idiocy surrounding race, what either was like before the incident, etc is meaningless.
There are MANY facts in this case that give you by probable cause. This would sail through a preliminary hearing and go to trial. Ppl are too quick to take the “conservative” v “liberal” side here. I could give two hoots as a prosecutor.
Now, is he guilty? Beats me. But that is a VERY different test than whether or not he should be prosecuted. He should be and will be. It is an easy call.
NAACP RIPS SHARPTON. Orlando newspaper = not my words or opinion.
Frustration, like happiness, is a state of mind. If a story catches my interest, one of the things I do is seek out conflicting reports as well as source material. In other words, I try to figure out what, most likely, really happened.
Once in a while I share my investigation and thought process. Once in awhile I repeat a point over time and across multiple threads, but I've found that it is literally impossible to correct a mass misunderstanding, even on this single website.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.