Originally posted by dadudemon
W-...Huh?
the reason the experts weren't allowed was because the technique was demonstrated to be, at the very least, of suspect reliability.
unless you are suggesting the judge got it wrong, and in fact the methods of voice analysis are reliable enough to prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, I'm not exactly sure where you are coming from.
For instance, I suspect you wouldn't allow expert mediums who speak to ghosts to testify, even if there were other experts to argue against those claims, no?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the evidence from the "experts" should be submitted as long as a counter expert can be submitted from the defense.
Both sides would have had time with the judge to present their case about the validity of voice experts and judges have very good resources on these kinds of things. I support the judge's decision here. The intellectually honest position of "hard to tell" sells poorly, better to never have the jury hear about voice analysis at all. We apply the same standard to most things in this way, you can't present evidence that fails to meet the standards of the courts.
Originally posted by Oliver North
the reason the experts weren't allowed was because the technique was demonstrated to be, at the very least, of suspect reliability.
And much more opinion than actual science so it turns into an emotional persuasion piece under the guise of being "evidence." A dirty lawyer trick, no matter which side is presenting it.
Originally posted by Oliver North
For instance, I suspect you wouldn't allow expert mediums who speak to ghosts to testify, even if there were other experts to argue against those claims, no?
That would be too extreme of an example, actually: it goes too far. Audio analysis and digital forensics, while still maturing best practices and standards, are a lot more science based than the proven-false area of psychics.
I'm pretty sure both of those experts could be right about some of their conclusions (not necessarily having to do with this case, but in everything they do with their work), with statistical significance (and definitely exceeding that of the "success" of psychics). But how many mistakes are too many before it is inadmissible? This is the problem, currently. It has to exceed the utility of polygraph tests, for sure, in order to be admissible. By how much of a margin, it is left to be seen.
Trayvon's girlfriend testified.
It looks like the prosecutor's plan to use the girlfriend's testimony (she was talking to Trayvon when the whole thing went down) massively backfired.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19504826&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com
"I thought he was going to be OK because he was right by his daddy's house, but his daddy was not home," Jeantel said as Martin's father cried in court.
Damn. That got me right in the feels. 🙁
Originally posted by BackFire
That's not a new photo. It's been around for a while.
I don't watch the news and I most especially don't watch Fox News so this is the first time I've seen that photo.
I honestly thought the crap about Zimmerman thinking that his nose was broken (or maybe that's what his lawyer said), was just bullshit/propaganda.
Kind of like the bullshit/propaganda that Martin was a thug and a drug dealer.
From what I can tell, there has been so much shit slinging and lies about this case that it is difficult to tell who is telling the truth. Glad some things are being revealed and/or debunked.
Originally posted by Lestov16
I'll be honest. I'm finding Zimmerman's story to be credible.
I was on the fence earlier in this thread.
However, as the case is fleshed out in court, I'm seeing a 70-30, here (Martin-Zimmerman).
I think Zimmerman was an overly zealous, moderately racist, try-hard. There is no way anyone can deny that and be taken seriously.
However, Martin could have avoided this whole situation, too AFTER the confrontation.
The first thing out of Trayvon's mouth should have been, "I don't want any trouble. I'm on my way home." That's what I would have said. 😐
Still, to this day, I get much lulz from the fact that the try-hard wannabe cop got his ASSSSS kicked. If there is an afterlife, surely Martin takes solace in that?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was on the fence earlier in this thread.However, as the case is fleshed out in court, I'm seeing a 70-30, here (Martin-Zimmerman).
I think Zimmerman was an overly zealous, moderately racist, try-hard. There is no way anyone can deny that and be taken seriously.
However, Martin could have avoided this whole situation, too AFTER the confrontation.
The first thing out of Trayvon's mouth should have been, "I don't want any trouble. I'm on my way home." That's what I would have said. 😐
Still, to this day, I get much lulz from the fact that the try-hard wannabe cop got his ASSSSS kicked. If there is an afterlife, surely Martin takes solace in that?
How exactly is he racist?
IIRC, he was a newly-made head of the neighborhood watch (whom the cop who put him in charge said he seemed like a dependable guy), who was following up on a string on robberies which were recently occuring in the neighborhood (probably why he had the gun). and I think the hoodie gave more presence of a threat than Trayvon's race. Had that been a white kid in a hoodie I think Zimmerman would have followed him.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I'm sick of hearing about this. This kind of shit happens all the time. Why is this particular case such a big national phenom? Is the public really that bored?
It's just really sad. The kid just wanted some ice tea and a skittles and got shot dead. Then the guy who shot him wasn't even taken into custody until much later when there was a public outrcry. Then Fox News kept going on about how it was his fault cause he was wearing a hoodie (they didn't say that his crime actually was being black while wearing a hoodie, but it was heavily implied). Then racists started taking pictures of themselves lying on the ground with ice tea and skittles, which was disgusting.
It's just very high profile. And people can have interest in more than one thing at a time, so it's not like it's stealing attention from something else worthwhile.
Originally posted by Bardock42Fox really tried to blame it on the kid because he was wearing a hoodie? That's stupid if that's true.
It's just really sad. The kid just wanted some ice tea and a skittles and got shot dead. Then the guy who shot him wasn't even taken into custody until much later when there was a public outrcry. Then Fox News kept going on about how it was his fault cause he was wearing a hoodie (they didn't say that his crime actually was being black while wearing a hoodie, but it was heavily implied). Then racists started taking pictures of themselves lying on the ground with ice tea and skittles, which was disgusting.It's just very high profile. And people can have interest in more than one thing at a time, so it's not like it's stealing attention from something else worthwhile.
