Posted on 06/22/2013 9:24:04 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
It might be wishful thinking on my part but I do believe Jesse and Al see the writing on the wall and aren’t willing to invest too much personally into stirring up the troops right now, just a few token comments here and there to keep their street cred.
Just heard the ABC radio news blurb about this. Wow did they slant it to make it sound like the audio of the scream clearly undercut Zimmerman’s case and that the defense dodged a bullet here. When in fact what happened is the judge spared the prosecution the embarrassment of their lame “experts” getting picked apart by real experts. Very obvious whose side ABC is on, not that it’s a surprise or anything.
Absolutely, Yard.IMHO the judge can easily defend her decision to the street by summarizing it as saying you might as well trust a "lie detector" as to trust those “experts.”
People talk about the likelihood of riots if Zimmerman isn’t convicted; OTOH sometimes people riot if their team wins the big game. And associated journalism has been selling the trope of Zimmerman being white, and being a big meanie. My question is, “Who should be, who is, making a TV documentary promoting the idea that the jury rightly found Zimmerman innocent?” Because if the jury does, public safety will be well served if that documentary is already in the can - and if the governor of any state which faces threats of rioting is able to, and has the courage to, demand and force the TV channels to air such a video.Such a video would report on the fact that Zimmerman had fought the police department over the issue of police brutality to a homeless black a few years ago. And the fact that Martin was on suspension from high school - all the stuff that the judge is keeping from the jury would be on it. And it would conclude with the reaction of the jurors to all that info that the judge suppressed. And it would compare the news coverage of the case to the reality of the case. It would IOW be something that the broadcasters would never voluntarily report.Just the knowledge that such a video was in work might even have a salutary effect on news coverage of the trial now. I wonder if Fox News might not do it?Maybe they could do it, and just go ahead and broadcast it while the jury was deliberating? Actually, now that the jury is sequestered, they could broadcast it now.
Not sure they have the courage to do that . . .
In any case someone make such a video to sell the jury’s verdict, whatever it be. And it’s clear enough that there is no need to try to induce the broadcasters to do so on the convict side. Getting them to do it for the acquit side, tho, might just be pulling teeth.
the opinion testimony of Mr. Owen and Dr. Reich are hereby excluded from trial.Interesting that while the order explicitly prohibits only the prosecution expert witnesses, it explicitly states that witnesses can say they recognize the voice, seeming to imply that - or taking for granted that - the defense will not call any expert witness. Probably true, but a funny thing to say.
This order does not prevent the parties from playing the tapes at trial or from
calling witnesses familiar with the voice of the Defendant or Martin to testify regarding the identity of the person(s) making the screams.”
There is video from the store showing him paying for the skittles and watermelon punch.
And there is a receipt for the same entered into evidence which must have been in either his pocket or in the bag, or subpoenaed from 7 Eleven.
>>They could record him over the same equipment or same type of equipment and drop a live squirrel in his britches. Maybe, that might come close to the elevated pitch you get when you are terrified.<<
One of the defense experts stated flatly that no tests like that were ever done because doing something to a subject to make him terrified would never pass the research ethics committee.
that may come down to ‘hear say’ evidence which is not admissible in any case. Any testimony stating that they heard someone saying something is NOT admissible. Whether or not that also relates to someone saying that the someone they heard being admissible remains to be seen.
Since the testimony presented by the defense experts rules out any scientific means of determining who was screaming that might also render someone thinking they heard ‘someone’ screaming not being allowed because there is no means of actually knowing exactly who they thought they heard screaming.
The defense experts testimony that it was impossible to make any accurate determination because of not only length but also because of the distance and cell phone modifying the actual sounds and the sound of a persons voice while screaming is different than their normal voice might possibly be construed as rendering any audio testimony other than actual direct encounter which includes seeing the person talking as well as hearing them talking being rejected.
The basic idea behind the "hearsay rule" is that jurors may have difficulty separating out the concepts "Bob testified under oath that Joe said that X was true," and "Joe testified that X was true, and was subject to cross-examination". If the side that would ask Bob about what Joe said wants Joe's testimony on the record, it should call Joe as a witness, thus allowing cross-examination.
Witness testimony related to things other people said is not always inadmissible; it may be used either when the fact that something was said (or details like the time it was said) may be of more significance than the factual statement itself, or in cases where the fact that a person said one thing at a particular time may impact the credibility of contrary statements on the witness stand [e.g. "Mr. Smith--you just said X, but according to Det. Jones, you told him Y. What did you actually tell Lt. Jones?"] Perhaps the witness will claim Det. Jones is misrepresenting his statements, or he may offer a reason for having told Det. Jones something other than what he's telling the court; the admissibility of Det. Jones' testimony regarding the earlier statements is more likely to promote rather than obscure the real truth.
Right, there’s so much out there that runs directly against the standard narrative that I think such a video would, if nothing else, be fascinating to a lot of people who have only been getting their info from the news. I think they might even be a little miffed at what they haven’t been told. So it would serve the dual purpose of getting the whole story out there plus revealing how manipulative the media is being.
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.