danivon wrote:On the voice analysis, the same expert said he'd need over 90% to make a match.

I don't think he said he would need over 90% to make a match. I think he said he would expect over a 90% match given the samples were from the same time period, location and conditions.

Basically, the way I read it, the expert said that given the time period between the two calls was minutes, as opposed to hours or days, and the conditions (location, weather, background noise) were similar he would expect a match between the two samples of over 90%. Since the match was only a 48% match, that can only mean the cry for help was not Zimmerman.

Whatever, it's clear that a 48% match was a long way off being enough.

danivon wrote:Whatever, it's clear that a 48% match was a long way off being enough.

Or it could be a long was from being definitive that it wasn't him. Basically, there is a 50/50 chance that it was him. At least as the defense attorney that is how I would argue it.

Archduke Russell John wrote: Basically, there is a 50/50 chance that it was him. At least as the defense attorney that is how I would argue it.

I don't believe that would necessarily be a scientific approach. For example, a chimpanzee is about 98% human, based on DNA matching. But a chimpanzee does not have a 98% chance of being human.

Which is why I wonder what a 'random' male of a similar age and background would match against the voice.

You can argue the merits of the SYG law (personally I agree with the theory behind it. If, for no valid reason, you attack me, my family, or my property I should have the right to blow your brains out. Enough of the pussification of America) But regardless of its merits it may not have any application here. Emphasis on 'may not'. Was Mr Zimmerman following from 5 feet away or 100 feet way? I don't know but there is quite a difference. Personally, I don't care if he continued to follow Mr Martin, if at a distance. I know that I am not going to be solely influenced by a 911 operator. Too many instances of problems with them.

But there does seem to be a racial slant to this that can't be ignored. If Mr Zimmerman was black and Mr Martin was white, I think things may have turned out differently.

As for the Neighborhood Watch, I have heard far too many reports on everything about this case, but this is the first time I have heard that Mr Zimmerman was not part of it.

But the few things that I have heard of Mr Zimmerman does not seem to indicate that he, himslef, was a racist at all.

rush

Was Mr Zimmerman following from 5 feet away or 100 feet way?

Since Zimmerman claims he was close enough for Martin punch him...we can safely assume he got pretty close.

rickyp wrote:Since Zimmerman claims he was close enough for Martin punch him...we can safely assume he got pretty close.

Except that Zimmerman lost him and started back to his car. It was only then that Martin took action to approach him. Therefore, I don't think you can safely assume as much as you may like.

Neither can you, ARJ. Again you state Zimmerman's claims as if they are factual. I thought we were waiting for trial?

There are still too many unanswered questions. And based on the lack of physical evidence and the only eye witness that I have heard of supports Mr Zimmerman, it seems a conviction may be tough. But more information may come out at the bail hearing. Apparently, the prosecution needs to present a case sufficient to show that there is a high degree of probablity of conviction (assuming no flight risk). I didn't know that until I heard his defense attorney. (but who trusts attorneys anyway, Shakespeare was right)

I believe that Shakespeare was mocking that instinct ...

Actually,no. I heard (or maybe read) a lawyer say that. But if you look at the context it seems to say that, the character at least, was completely serious. I will have to re-read the text.

You are right that the character was completely serious

Here is something from somewhere in Harvard (God I hate to use anything from there)

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq ... d-lawyers/

I don't think we'll ever settle the question of whether lawyers are blood sucking leaches or honorable members of a noble profession without which civilization would fall apart. (psst ... they're both). Let's just agree that Shakespeare was cognizant of the duality 500 years ago.

Bail hearings are not rulings on the chances of conviction necessarily. The standard for remand is very high, and are more about protecting the community and risk of flight.

$150,000 is not a huge bond, but it appears that the conditions (curfew, GPS, regular check-in, no alcohol) are relatively tough. What was odd was that Zimmerman took the stand and gave an apology (although not naming Trayvon Martin's parents as he did so). It's a potential self-imposed problems for the defence.