The voice analysis is the latest piece of information to cast doubt on the narrative, advanced by Zimmerman and his family, that the Neighborhood Watch volunteer was attacked by 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. A police video this week showed no blood or bruises on Zimmerman in the aftermath of the incident, while Martin's funeral director said he saw no signs of a struggle on the teen's body.
Hmmmm....so no evidence consistent with a struggle between Zimmerman or Martin - directly contradicting Zimmerman's account of what happpened. Gee, I wonder why? The article contains a YouTube Video containing the 911 audio in question.
Trayvon Martin Shooting: Voice Experts Claim Teen's Cries, Not Zimmerman's, Can Be Heard On 911 Call
Thanks again to Ryan Anderson.
I also found another good article posted by Reginald Hudlin on Facebook. The article concerns and interview in which the facts of the case are debated.
On tonight's Piers Morgan Tonight, Piers got into it with MSNBC's Touré, who was extremely annoyed about the way Piers had handled his interview with George Zimmerman's brother, Robert, the previous night. The exchange got pretty heated and Touré landed some serious blows on Piers.
Touré Slams Piers Morgan on His Own Show Over the Facts of the Trayvon Martin Case
Thanks to Ryan Anderson for pointing out this article that explains that the mystery of who's voice was calling out in pain on the 911 tape could not be George Zimmerman.
ReplyDeleteSo much wrong with the above. I've listened to the recording a couple times and cannot say that the scream indicates pain. Also if you'd read the article, you'd know that it doesn't show that it "could not" be, just that it likely isn't. Do you write like this out of laziness or do you intentionally mean to shape the tone?
.so no evidence consistent with a struggle between Zimmerman or Martin - directly contradicting Zimmerman's account of what happpened.
Except of course that the police report does confirm bleeding from Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head. So saying "no evidence" is wrong.
You said:
ReplyDeleteI've listened to the recording a couple times and cannot say that the scream indicates pain. Also if you'd read the article, you'd know that it doesn't show that it "could not" be, just that it likely isn't. Do you write like this out of laziness or do you intentionally mean to shape the tone?
But the article says:
The Orlando Sentinel consulted two voice experts to try to settle the debate, and both came to the same conclusion: The cries could not have come from George Zimmerman.
So where does it say that the voice calling "help" in a very distressed way could have been Zimmerman, since you read this?
Except of course that the police report does confirm bleeding from Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head. So saying "no evidence" is wrong.
So the article you recommended contradicts the police report that you have not referenced.
Good job!
This post
ReplyDeleteThe cries could not have come from George Zimmerman
To be fair, I read that as “The cries could not have possibly come from George Zimmerman”
It could be read as “The cries possibly could not have come from George Zimmerman”
But the point of the article is that the cries on the tape probably were not Zimmerman’s.
So the article you recommended contradicts…
Focus please. The original police surveillance video appears to not show wounds because it is low resolution and it doesn’t really show much of anything. An enhanced video does show a wound on the back of his head. This is consistent with the officer looking at the back of his head. This appars to confirm that he at some point hit the back of his head on something.
In any case, between the police report (see google) saying he had wounds, and this new video, your statement that there is ”no evidence consistent with a struggle between Zimmerman or Martin” is flat out wrong. To be fair, you were not aware of the new video when you made the statement, but you should have been aware that the police report regarding his injuries since that’s been known since the beginning, but you are pretty selective on what evidence you choose to acknowledge…
Last post
So Is yours.
Except that I try very hard not to have one. Big difference.
Why do you think what they think matter?
I don’t think what they think matters. I think what they do matters.
We have contradicting reports – both cited by you.
This comment is telling. In this case, I’ve just presented data as it’s come available. You make sure that you present data that only supports your position. And again this doesn’t surprise me because it’s exactly what you do with your religion.
To be fair, I read that as “The cries could not have possibly come from George Zimmerman”
ReplyDeleteSo you are finally being fair? You said:
I've listened to the recording a couple times and cannot say that the scream indicates pain. Also if you'd read the article, you'd know that it doesn't show that it "could not" be, just that it likely isn't. Do you write like this out of laziness or do you intentionally mean to shape the tone?
Hmmmm...An apology should go with the fairness.
In any case, between the police report (see google) saying he had wounds, and this new video, your statement that there is ”no evidence consistent with a struggle between Zimmerman or Martin” is flat out wrong. To be fair, you were not aware of the new video when you made the statement, but you should have been aware that the police report regarding his injuries since that’s been known since the beginning, but you are pretty selective on what evidence you choose to acknowledge…
And now the fairness goes out the window. There are conflicting reports. There are still some news sources claiming that neither Martin or Zimmerman had wounds consistent with a struggle. I remain skeptical and I'm sure the truth will come out.
Except that I try very hard not to have one. Big difference.
The fact you conclude that I don't try to be consistent and unbiased shows you bias. You mean you can read my soul? You know what I think? Please be more honest.
I don’t think what they think matters. I think what they do matters.
As if you can easily separate what they think from what they do. I'll bite: What is it that they have done that you have issue with?
This comment is telling. In this case, I’ve just presented data as it’s come available. You make sure that you present data that only supports your position. And again this doesn’t surprise me because it’s exactly what you do with your religion.
Your assumptions are real silly. I constantly present opinion on my blog I don't agree with and respond to them. Including yours - no matter how stupid I think your ideas are.