New Witness...TRAYVON was beating Zimmerman up!

[Emma]

I'm still going with what the eye witness first reported and signed statements to that event. When it first happened and was not made political.

I have less doubts than I did in the beginning, although there are still aspects of the case and his story that trouble me. I've been moving back and forth on the spectrum, but hearing that the lead investigator doubted his story and wanted to file charges has swung me back again, and I suspect I'll stay here until more compelling evidence comes to light. I really hope the FDLE and whoever else is assisting in can get to the bottom of this.

I admit that if it turns out it was Martin and not Zimmerman screaming for help, it would make me seriously question his version of events, moreso than I already do --- especially with him making that comment to EMS. That would take it to a whole 'nother level, IMO.

Interestingly enough, now it's been released that a second EMS vehicle was dispatched to care for Zimmerman, but was told that they weren't needed.

Apparently, it wasn't the EMT's who treated Zimmerman, it was the cops that arrived on scene.

No, the report says that EMS tended to Zimmerman in the back of the patrol car. IMO, after Martin was declared dead.

I really want to see the EMS report.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If it turns out that it is determined Martin and not Zimmerman was screaming for help, will that change your opinion about this case?

I'm still going with what the eye witness first reported and signed statements to that event. When it first happened and was not made political.

I have less doubts than I did in the beginning, although there are still aspects of the case and his story that trouble me. I've been moving back and forth on the spectrum, but hearing that the lead investigator doubted his story and wanted to file charges has swung me back again, and I suspect I'll stay here until more compelling evidence comes to light. I really hope the FDLE and whoever else is assisting in can get to the bottom of this.

I admit that if it turns out it was Martin and not Zimmerman screaming for help, it would make me seriously question his version of events, moreso than I already do --- especially with him making that comment to EMS. That would take it to a whole 'nother level, IMO.

How can it be if it turns out that it's Trayvon and not Zimmerman, are you saying the eyewitnesses lied?

 

[KissMy]

There are new pictures enhanced from the police video of Zimmerman. They show a lot of head trauma. Physical evidence & witnesses will always trump the voice print. Zimmerman's black neighbor describes his injuries.

 

[Emma]

I'm still going with what the eye witness first reported and signed statements to that event. When it first happened and was not made political.

I have less doubts than I did in the beginning, although there are still aspects of the case and his story that trouble me. I've been moving back and forth on the spectrum, but hearing that the lead investigator doubted his story and wanted to file charges has swung me back again, and I suspect I'll stay here until more compelling evidence comes to light. I really hope the FDLE and whoever else is assisting in can get to the bottom of this.

I admit that if it turns out it was Martin and not Zimmerman screaming for help, it would make me seriously question his version of events, moreso than I already do --- especially with him making that comment to EMS. That would take it to a whole 'nother level, IMO.

How can it be if it turns out that it's Trayvon and not Zimmerman, are you saying the eyewitnesses lied?

No, again there is a difference. I think they made their statements in good faith; in my view, that's not lying. You were a cop, you know eyewitnesses are often unreliable. It was dark and raining and none of them were close enough to know for sure what was happening.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are new pictures enhanced from the police video of Zimmerman. They show a lot of head trauma. Physical evidence & witnesses will always trump the voice print. Zimmerman's black neighbor describes his injuries.

Thanks

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have less doubts than I did in the beginning, although there are still aspects of the case and his story that trouble me. I've been moving back and forth on the spectrum, but hearing that the lead investigator doubted his story and wanted to file charges has swung me back again, and I suspect I'll stay here until more compelling evidence comes to light. I really hope the FDLE and whoever else is assisting in can get to the bottom of this.

I admit that if it turns out it was Martin and not Zimmerman screaming for help, it would make me seriously question his version of events, moreso than I already do --- especially with him making that comment to EMS. That would take it to a whole 'nother level, IMO.

How can it be if it turns out that it's Trayvon and not Zimmerman, are you saying the eyewitnesses lied?

No, again there is a difference. I think they made their statements in good faith; in my view, that's not lying. You were a cop, you know eyewitnesses are often unreliable. It was dark and raining and none of them were close enough to know for sure what was happening.

They reported what they saw it's that simple. The best and most reliable witnesses are those who are questioned within hours of the incident and haven't been able to talk with other people involved.

 

[Emma]

They reported what they saw it's that simple. The best and most reliable witnesses are those who are questioned within hours of the incident

I'm not going to google, but I've read at least some of their statements, and I listened to the tapes of the calls. There are examples of mistaken statements by these people that we know are not true, and more than a few that contradict each other.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They reported what they saw it's that simple. The best and most reliable witnesses are those who are questioned within hours of the incident

I'm not going to google, but I've read at least some of their statements, and I listened to the tapes of the calls. There are examples of mistaken statements by these people that we know are not true, and more than a few that contradict each other.

We know that aren't true? How do we know this since none of us were there and they were?

 

[KissMy]

Steve Cain: One of the nation's leading experts on voiceprint technology.

If you distort your natural speaking voice to the point that you're not giving parallel voice samples you're really not comparing apples and apples. You're comparing apples and oranges. An experienced operator would notice this immediately. If I see this I won't stand for it and I will tell the court I will not accept such a sample and often they'll throw the defendant in jail for failing to comply with the district attorney's request for a natural, undisguised sample."Cain says that it's essential that speech samples contain exactly the same words and phrases as those in the questioned sample, because only identical speech sounds are used for comparison. He says the suspect should not be allowed to read the phrases from a transcript but should repeat each phrase after it is spoken by someone else. To avoid an unnatural response, the suspect should repeat the first phrase and proceed in the same manner with each successive phrase.What are the limits of the accuracy of voiceprints?' The limits," says Cain, "generally are the quality of the evidence it self. It's like any other pattern-matching skill, such as handwriting. You have to have good samples."

 

[The Infidel]

There are new pictures enhanced from the police video of Zimmerman. They show a lot of head trauma. Physical evidence & witnesses will always trump the voice print. Zimmerman's black neighbor describes his injuries.

 

[KissMy]

There are new pictures enhanced from the police video of Zimmerman. They show a lot of head trauma. Physical evidence & witnesses will always trump the voice print. Zimmerman's black neighbor describes his injuries.

There are even better ones I saw on CNN. I have not seen them on the web yet. They show multiple injuries to the back of his head.

 

[The Infidel]

They reported what they saw it's that simple. The best and most reliable witnesses are those who are questioned within hours of the incident

I'm not going to google, but I've read at least some of their statements, and I listened to the tapes of the calls. There are examples of mistaken statements by these people that we know are not true, and more than a few that contradict each other.

Like this kind of crap?

‘He Looks Black’: NBC Launching Investigation into Selective Editing of Zimmerman Police Tape | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[The Infidel]

There are new pictures enhanced from the police video of Zimmerman. They show a lot of head trauma. Physical evidence & witnesses will always trump the voice print. Zimmerman's black neighbor describes his injuries.

There are even better ones I saw on CNN. I have not seen them on the web yet. They show multiple injuries to the back of his head.

I am truly sorry Trayvon is dead, and I mean that with everything in me, but I wish folks would just let the facts come out so we can all have clearer heads and nobody else is killed or hurt.

There is more to this story than we know... and people are getting hurt because of the hatred being spewed by racist groups.

And dirty tricks like NBC played are way too dangerous for my liking... they need to pay for what they did to Zimmerman.

 

[Emma]

Interesting article, from 2000:

Research psychologists have been studying the reliability of eyewitness testimony for about 20 years. Their experiments have included having people watch videos of enacted crimes or staging mock crimes and asking them to identify perpetrators from photos, testing various interviewing techniques with eyewitnesses and with police interrogators, and exploring whether eyewitness accounts could be misled by questions after the event.
Early on, they found that eyewitness identification often was not very good. Studies showed that witnesses often identified the wrong person from the photos (in one study, almost half the time) and that police interviewing techniques often hampered information gathering.


At the same time, researchers found that they could improve eyewitness information by changing the way it is gathered. The researchers built, in the psychological literature, a strong case for better police practices and they testified on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in court cases.


But by and large, police departments haven't exactly knocked their doors down to find out what law enforcement was doing wrong in getting testimony to convict people.


Further, the justice system rarely gave police incentives to explore better methods, says Wells. "Courts almost never suppress identification evidence, even when the most egregiously biased line-up procedures are used."


But then came the 1990s and the widespread use of DNA testing. In cases across the country, the technique found that mistakes had been made. People had gone to prison for years for crimes that they did not commit.


Today, more than 60 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence. And most were convicted with eyewitness testimony.

Suddenly, a big impact on criminal justice

another, from 2006:

Mistaken or flawed identification has assumed a newfound prominence in recent years: It's been cited as a factor in nearly 78 percent of the nation's first 130 convictions later overturned by DNA testing, according to the New York-based Innocence Project, which works to free the wrongly convicted. As a result, a number of researchers are turning their attention to helping police departments and juries better understand the circumstances under which eyewitnesses observe crimes and later identify a suspect.


Since the publication of both the American Psychologist and Department of Justice pieces, states such as New Jersey, North Carolina and Wisconsin have incorporated many of the recommendations, including one in the Department of Justice report that advises law enforcement officials to warn eyewitnesses that the culprit's appearance may have changed since the crime.


However, Wells challenges that recommendation in an upcoming article in Law and Human Behavior. In the study, he presented participants with a video of a crime involving four culprits. Then, he asked the participants to identify the culprits from four six-person arrays that either included or did not include a culprit. He found that the instruction actually increased the participants' number of misidentifications.
"The instruction seems to loosen the criterion of eyewitnesses and increases their propensity to identify someone," he says. "Eyewitnesses start to imagine possible changes and think, 'This must be him.'"


How reliable is eyewitness testimony?

 

[Emma]

They reported what they saw it's that simple. The best and most reliable witnesses are those who are questioned within hours of the incident

I'm not going to google, but I've read at least some of their statements, and I listened to the tapes of the calls. There are examples of mistaken statements by these people that we know are not true, and more than a few that contradict each other.

We know that aren't true? How do we know this since none of us were there and they were?

I'm talking about stuff said by witnesses that contradict what few facts we do know, like describing one as wearing a white t shirt (and another said red t shirt). We do know both of those statements to be false, according to the police report and video. And with the contradictory statements (and callers on tape) there were varying descriptions of Zimmerman's actions after the shooting, for example.

 

[Emma]

There are new pictures enhanced from the police video of Zimmerman. They show a lot of head trauma. Physical evidence & witnesses will always trump the voice print. Zimmerman's black neighbor describes his injuries.

There are even better ones I saw on CNN. I have not seen them on the web yet. They show multiple injuries to the back of his head.

That's odd. That first photo looks different than the one in the first article I saw claiming Zimmerman's injuries were worse than appeared on the video.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Zimmerman-ABC-video-enhanced-caption.jpg

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting article, from 2000:

Research psychologists have been studying the reliability of eyewitness testimony for about 20 years. Their experiments have included having people watch videos of enacted crimes or staging mock crimes and asking them to identify perpetrators from photos, testing various interviewing techniques with eyewitnesses and with police interrogators, and exploring whether eyewitness accounts could be misled by questions after the event.
Early on, they found that eyewitness identification often was not very good. Studies showed that witnesses often identified the wrong person from the photos (in one study, almost half the time) and that police interviewing techniques often hampered information gathering.


At the same time, researchers found that they could improve eyewitness information by changing the way it is gathered. The researchers built, in the psychological literature, a strong case for better police practices and they testified on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in court cases.


But by and large, police departments haven't exactly knocked their doors down to find out what law enforcement was doing wrong in getting testimony to convict people.


Further, the justice system rarely gave police incentives to explore better methods, says Wells. "Courts almost never suppress identification evidence, even when the most egregiously biased line-up procedures are used."


But then came the 1990s and the widespread use of DNA testing. In cases across the country, the technique found that mistakes had been made. People had gone to prison for years for crimes that they did not commit.


Today, more than 60 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence. And most were convicted with eyewitness testimony.

Suddenly, a big impact on criminal justice

another, from 2006:

Mistaken or flawed identification has assumed a newfound prominence in recent years: It's been cited as a factor in nearly 78 percent of the nation's first 130 convictions later overturned by DNA testing, according to the New York-based Innocence Project, which works to free the wrongly convicted. As a result, a number of researchers are turning their attention to helping police departments and juries better understand the circumstances under which eyewitnesses observe crimes and later identify a suspect.


Since the publication of both the American Psychologist and Department of Justice pieces, states such as New Jersey, North Carolina and Wisconsin have incorporated many of the recommendations, including one in the Department of Justice report that advises law enforcement officials to warn eyewitnesses that the culprit's appearance may have changed since the crime.


However, Wells challenges that recommendation in an upcoming article in Law and Human Behavior. In the study, he presented participants with a video of a crime involving four culprits. Then, he asked the participants to identify the culprits from four six-person arrays that either included or did not include a culprit. He found that the instruction actually increased the participants' number of misidentifications.
"The instruction seems to loosen the criterion of eyewitnesses and increases their propensity to identify someone," he says. "Eyewitnesses start to imagine possible changes and think, 'This must be him.'"


How reliable is eyewitness testimony?

As I said the best witnesses are those who have been question within hours of the incident.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are even better ones I saw on CNN. I have not seen them on the web yet. They show multiple injuries to the back of his head.

That's odd. That first photo looks different than the one in the first article I saw claiming Zimmerman's injuries were worse than appeared on the video.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Zimmerman-ABC-video-enhanced-caption.jpg

They look exactly the way I pointed them out even when it was reported that Zimmerman had no noticeable injuries

 

[KissMy]

Interesting article, from 2000:

Research psychologists have been studying the reliability of eyewitness testimony for about 20 years...

...later overturned by DNA testing, according to the New York-based Innocence Project, which works to free the wrongly convicted.

DNA in controlled conditions are fairly accurate. Voice prints can only reach 99% under controlled conditions. This Martin / Zimmerman voice comparison has anything but controlled conditions or good samples. As I read their test, it is not even close to accurate. Any lawyer will impeach their voice print analysis. It is such a poor analysis that doubtful IMHO that it will even warrant an arrest.

Steve Cain: One of the nation's leading experts on voiceprint technology.

If you distort your natural speaking voice to the point that you're not giving parallel voice samples you're really not comparing apples and apples. You're comparing apples and oranges. An experienced operator would notice this immediately. If I see this I won't stand for it and I will tell the court I will not accept such a sample and often they'll throw the defendant in jail for failing to comply with the district attorney's request for a natural, undisguised sample."Cain says that it's essential that speech samples contain exactly the same words and phrases as those in the questioned sample, because only identical speech sounds are used for comparison. He says the suspect should not be allowed to read the phrases from a transcript but should repeat each phrase after it is spoken by someone else. To avoid an unnatural response, the suspect should repeat the first phrase and proceed in the same manner with each successive phrase. What are the limits of the accuracy of voiceprints?' The limits," says Cain, "generally are the quality of the evidence it self. It's like any other pattern-matching skill, such as handwriting. You have to have good samples."

 

[Emma]

As I said the best witnesses are those who have been question within hours of the incident.

Stands to reason; but it apparently goes beyond that.