George Zimmerman 'to be charged'

[Omnileech]

Quote:

I'll answer you, but I'm not saying anything else to the b***h that called me a racist. I hate when people can't directly refute something so they falsely accuse me of being racist. It's so juvenile. I haven't said or done anything racist.

That's a matter of opinion. An opinion many here do not share due.

Quote:

1 - The two 'experts' used different methods, yes, but Tom Owen had a conflict of interests which was not acknowledged by the press, as a fact he had developed and was selling his software for $5000 per license, so he had a vested interest in getting a certain outcome to the point where he apparently ignored situational circumstances that would have thrown off the results, unless of course he told the reporters and they chose not to include that in their article. The second 'expert', Ed Primeau, just listened to the two sound bytes and said in his opinion it was not Zimmerman, but there's nothing scientific about his method,and people's judgments can be and often are influenced by what they know. This whole case is too big, meaning he almost certainly had prior knowledge of the case, so an 'expert' like that is contaminated.

Blah blah blah. Go ahead. Keep attacking the people without debunking anything they concluded. Ed Primeau has made a career out of analyzing sound. You have not.

Quote:

2 - All I'm saying is Tom Owen has a conflict of interest and the other expert was contaminated by having prior knowledge of the case.

Go ahead, keep attacking the people without a shred of evidence to debunk their conclusions.

Quote:

3 - My previous post did prove that Tom Owen had made and was selling his biometric software for $5000 per license

Irrelevant. I also DO NOT CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS

Quote:

4 - It IS relevant because it's a conflict of interests. His software got free publicity, which makes him money./quote]

Go ahead, keep attacking the people without a shred of evidence to debunk their conclusions.

Quote:

5 - But people ban be biased whether they mean to be or nor, so Ed Primeau's method is more vulnerable to such bias.

Go ahead, keep attacking the people without a shred of evidence to debunk their conclusions.

Quote:

6 - The witness, John, saw Zimmerman yelling for help..

But people ban be biased whether they mean to be or not. Eyewitness testimony, especially when the police ******** up questioning, is prone to error.

Quote:

- The police did observe Zimmerman bleeding, as did an EMT. As for bruising, I've had my share f bruises and I know from personal experience that they can take hours to appear sometimes, and the video we have of Zimmerman is from only 40 minutes after the shooting. Regarding a broken nose, that can also take a while to swell up so not seeing bruises or not seeing a swollen nose doesn't mean that they weren't there. A witness did come forward and said he saw Zimmerman the next day and confirmed that his nose was swollen and bandaged.

OH. Then if there was a broken nose involved then surely there are records of Zimmerman checking into an emergency room! How about a doctor's office! Surely there's hard, documented evidence from people qualified. Do you or do you not have proof from the EMT or someone else in a position to document anything? If not than admit as much as stop wasting my time.

Quote:

8 - Anyone can study biometrics a little and learn it's weaknesses, no doctorate needed.

I'm sure you can be an armchair expert. That means your opinion is jack s**t compared to an expert. And those two are experts. You are also as biased as they come so don't pretend you're not.

[Omnileech]

Quote:

People like you are the hate-mongers. You label anyone who dares to think for themselves as racists, and that's disgusting. I am not a racist, I don't deal in hate and intollerance, I deal in logic and justice.

What logic? What Justice? I've yet to see either from you. There's more evidence showing you to be a racist than you being a logical thinker.

Quote:

Conflict of Interest... I guess you are too stupid to understand that, because I already dumbed it down as much as I could.

IRRELEVANT.

Quote:

I but forth a lot of evidence to debunk Tom Owen, and as for Ed Primeau, if he had any professionalism at all he would have stayed out of to because je was contaminated by prior knowledge of the case.

ev·i·dence/ˈevədəns/
Noun:
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What evidence? None of that here. Just a lot of baseless conjecture and supposition.

Quote:

Tom Owen cares. He's probably sold a lot of copies of his software since that article was printed for $5000 each. That's a lot of money. Conflict of interests.

IRRELEVANT. Does not debunk his methodology or his conclusions. Seriously? All you have is character assassination?

Quote:

I'm telling the truth. Ed Primeau's method is vulnerable to whatever bias he had prior to the soundbites being given to him. In a case as huge as this one, he was sure to have a pre-exisying bias.

Prove it. With evidence. Real evidence. Not the bullshit you've shown so far.

Quote:

Two witnesses complained about alleged police misconduct. The mother of a 13 year old witness said the police asked her son a leading question, that's right, ONE question. By her own admission the question was asking what color shirt the man on the ground was wearing and they started listing colors to the boy.

The second witness to complain was Mary Kutch, who didn't want to get involved on the night of the shooting and she chose not to be interviewed, but when Zimmerman wasn't arrested I guess she decided t give her statement then, and she got pissed off that they weren't acting on her opinion that it was Trayvon screaming.

The fact is, she saw nothing and had no new information to contribute, so really they didn''t need her statement at all, not when they had John's. Anyway, her lies made the police look bed, but they actually handled things by the book.

If they handled things by the book they wouldn't ask ANY leading questions or do anything but listen to testimony without supplying information. And if they were doing things by the book they'd have determined whether Zimmerman was intoxicated or not. DID THEY?

Quote:

I'm sure that evidence will come out when the defense makes a motion to dismiss all charges.

Look who's arguing to the future. Where's your logic now?

Quote:

My opinion beats yours. I actually did research.

I'm using logic, skepticism and occam's razor. Logical people don't link irrelevant crime stories to try to form some ad hoc argument. Logical people don't conduct character assassination of the victimin some attempt to make everyone forget the facts of the case. A armed and dangerous man thought a teenaged black kid didn't belong in his neighborhood. He stalked the terrified kid, called police. The police told him to leave the kid alone. The man chose to disregard what the dispatcher told him. He confronted the unarmed kid because the man wasn't going to let him run away. After the man initiated contact the kid ended up dead. The man claimed that he called for help and was attacked by the kid, but hard evidence doesn't back up his claim. He claimed the kid beat the s**t out of him on the pavement, but the EMT personnel didn't see any evidence of that either.

Now what the ******** does a rape trial have to do with that? Nothing. Nada. Irrelevant. What the ******** does the teenager's facebook or twitter have to do with it? Nothing. His troubles at school? Nothing. All irrelevant to the facts of the case. But go on. You keep trying to argue that black people are duplicitous and violent and continue to act surprised when people use logical reasoning to conclude that you have a bias against black people.

[Oidin]

Omorose Panya

So... no?

This is what I want:

a) Evidence that it does or does not somehow account for those things.

b) A description of the specific procedure, if possible.

c) An estimated error rate calculated directly from that program's methodology.

d) Differing results from tests from other methods, if possible.

Listing potential problems, while useful information, does not tell me how much it affects the reading.

If you want to know how speaker recognition works here's a good read.

[Omorose Panya]

Kasumi of Vientown

We know his head was slammed into something hard at least twice to cause the two gashes on the back of his head, but I don't claim to know all the details, but the two gashes on the back of Zimmerman's head had to come from somewhere. Also there were grass stains on Zimmerman's jacket, so apparently during the attack, Zimmerman managed to get off the sidewalk and into the grass. Slamming Zimmerman's head into the grass wouldn't hurt as much, plus the damage was already done. Anyway, it is sure to come out if it goes to trial, but I have my doubts about that. The DA's case is really weak, so a good judge would probably just throw it out.

From where are you and others getting the information about the grass stains on his shirt? I'm just confused if it wasn't in any report. And has it been confirmed that the wounds on his head were from that night?

Aside from that, I have to wonder how hitting his head on the ground would cut him like that. Or was it more like a bruise, which would make more sense? And even then it really should cause some kind of internal damage. The head cannot take that kind of trauma.

You keep saying that the case is weak but you have not yet demonstrated that to be the case. So far I have not seen any compelling evidence that the shooting was in self-defense. Zmmerman is screwed without that.

[Omorose Panya]

Kasumi of Vientown

I'll PM the evidence to you since if I post it all judgmental freaks will just call me a racist some more. I have no racial motive to any of my beliefs.but a lot of these people here seem to believe that anyone that disagrees with them is a racist, and I don't want their words of hate distracting you from the evidence. There is a lot of evidence, so it'll take a while to get it all together, though, lol.

If it isn't questionable, why do you feel the need to PM it to me? But okay.

As for my opinion of whether you are racist or not, I reserve my judgment for now because I have not read enough of your posts to acquire an opinion, but I have noted that many others do consider you to be racist. On your part, I have noticed that you do jump the gun and are quick to point out things of Trayvon's past and jump to conclusions about them, but, again, I do not yet have enough information to reasonably suspect that it is racial.

So far the only person I label as a racist p***k is Yoshpet, who posts on the main ED forum, not the politics subforum.

[Omorose Panya]

Kasumi of Vientown

Bruising sometimes wont show up on corpses right away until weeks or even months later. I'm not really sure why it works that way sometimes and other times it doesn't, but it's just a fact that as a body decomposes bruises that were invisible or that were too faint to be seen with the naked eye become more and more apparent. Maybe there's some method that an experienced medical examiner could use to identify these signs of injuries which a mere funeral director wouldn't know how to do, but in any case the funeral director isn't really a good witness. The actual certified medical examiner that performed the formal autopsy is best evidence.

Bruises won't show for months on a living body; if there is no bloodflow the bruise won't appear months afterward.

A medical examiner can examine the bones, yes. But, in our case, it's more useful to determine if Zimmerman has any bruising/damage.

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Omorose Panya

Kasumi of Vientown

I'll PM the evidence to you since if I post it all judgmental freaks will just call me a racist some more. I have no racial motive to any of my beliefs.but a lot of these people here seem to believe that anyone that disagrees with them is a racist, and I don't want their words of hate distracting you from the evidence. There is a lot of evidence, so it'll take a while to get it all together, though, lol.

If it isn't questionable, why do you feel the need to PM it to me? But okay.

As for my opinion of whether you are racist or not, I reserve my judgment for now because I have not read enough of your posts to acquire an opinion, but I have noted that many others do consider you to be racist. On your part, I have noticed that you do jump the gun and are quick to point out things of Trayvon's past and jump to conclusions about them, but, again, I do not yet have enough information to reasonably suspect that it is racial.

So far the only person I label as a racist p***k is Yoshpet, who posts on the main ED forum, not the politics subforum.

I wasn't going to mention Trayvon's past. I only brought that up after someone else asked me what I knew on the subject. I prefer not to speak poorly of the dead, but Trayvon's character is also relevant since so many people try to regard him as some kind of saint and refuse to acknowledge evidence that supports Zimmerman.

That sort of fanaticism isn't very American. As long as George Zimmerman gets a fair trial, the most he might be convicted of is stalking, but even that is a stretch. Anyway, back to typing.

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Kasumi of Vientown

Tactical Leg Sweep

Kasumi of Vientown

Tactical Leg Sweep

Kasumi of Vientown

liar, liar, pants on fire. Trayvon Martin's autopsy hasn't been released. A funeral director with no forensic certifications and no ethical duty to the truth claimed that Trayvon had no injuries, but some injuries are not visible to the naked eye, so his claims are meaningless.

Liar liar pants on fire. The job of the funeral director is to clean the body and make it presentable for viewing and burial. Therefore, him stating that there were no superficial signs of an injury is perfectly legitimate. Also, please enlighten me with your extensive medical knowledge what those invisible injuries showing a physical confrontation might be. I'm mighty interested.

Bruising sometimes wont show up on corpses right away until weeks or even months later. I'm not really sure why it works that way sometimes and other times it doesn't, but it's just a fact that as a body decomposes bruises that were invisible or that were too faint to be seen with the naked eye become more and more apparent. Maybe there's some method that an experienced medical examiner could use to identify these signs of injuries which a mere funeral director wouldn't know how to do, but in any case the funeral director isn't really a good witness. The actual certified medical examiner that performed the formal autopsy is best evidence.

Again, sauce? Even assuming contusions became prevalent months after Martin's body was examined, physical confrontation has more signs than contusions. Abrasions on the knuckles, for example, accompany said bruises, showing they occurred while the patient was alive. Swelling would be another indication. Will these magically show up at a later date as well?

I don't fully understand the physics behind it, and to be honest I don't even remember where I read it, I just know that there have been cases where a death was ruled accidental at first and as a result the coroner didn't look for 'invisible bruising' in the first autopsy. I definitely read about it somewhere, I'm not just making that up. The point being that the funeral director isn't qualified on the subject of forensics, so I advise that you not put too much trust in his word before we have the actual medical examiners findings. Also, he has no ethical duty to the truth, so he might also be lying about Trayvon's lack of injuries. The truth will come out when we hear from the medical examiner

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1731416/pdf/v054p00348.pdf
Reading this to see if it is in there. It does say already that bruises are easily overlooked in cases of darker-skinned individuals, but that much is common sense





DECOMPOSITION

Quote:

With the increasing postmortem interval, bruises become more diffuse and are frequently accentuated in intensity as a result of the degradation products of haemoglobin. Indeed, bruises can appear a day or two after the postmortem examination that were not visible at the first necropsy, or those that were seen initially can appear more pronounced. Fingertip bruises indicative of grip marks are a particularly good example of this phenomenon. With the onset of putrefaction, the body becomes discoloured and bruises become modified in their appearance, making their accurate assessment difficult. Immunological methods have demonstrated the usefulness of glycophorin A, a constituent of red blood cell membranes, as a marker to differentiate between true bruising and putrefactive discoloration. Although haemoglobin pigments readily filter through blood vessels, erythrocyte membranes do so less easily because of their molecular size. Therefore, bruises will contain a greater amount of erythrocyte membrane material than areas of discolouration resulting from putrefactive change. However, glycophorin A cannot help to differentiate between antemortem and postmortem injury because extravasated blood from vessels includes erythrocytes, regardless of whether the damage occurred before or after death.

Yes, and this funeral director received the body days after the postmortem examination. Also, again, aside from contusions, as I said before, the director states there were NO physical signs of a struggle on the body. No abrasions, no punctures from fingernails. Contusions are not the only signs of a physical struggle.