PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
Law and Politics fascinate me. So, because I prefer to follow the political and/or judicial events that interest me with a minimum of filtering opinion, I watch a lot of C-Span and assorted Live Streams. And, for the Zimmerman Trial that has meant considerable time spent at WFTV and with the Video/Blog Archives of their trial coverage.
Note: Unfortunately, although they have streamed all of the proceeding’s pre-trial hearings, the site’s Archives do not contain the video of those hearings alongside its complete record of the (to-date) nine days of jury selection/trial and I haven’t been able to find archival video of the hearings (including the Frye testimony of Mr. Owens and Dr. Reich) anywhere else. I wish I could. Because, in my opinion, the testimony of both of the Prosecution’s experts (and particularly that of Dr. Reich) was embarrassingly painful to watch/hear and I’d really like to have a video/audio exhibit to back me up.
But, (Bravo! Don West, Irritante Extraordinaire) we do have a record of Judge Nelson’s Order Excluding The Opinion Testimony of Mr. Owens and Dr. Reich and on its face, it would seem that, in addition to excluding the testimony of the two Prosecution witnesses – but not that of the four Defense experts (Drs. Nakasone, French, Duddington and Wayman) whose opinions she embraced in her Ruling – she virtually invited the introduction of the 911 tape and the testimony of family members (Martin and Zimmerman) regarding the voice identification of the person heard screaming on it.
So, if the Prosecution calls Mr. Martin’s mother or another Martin family member – it is unlikely that they would call his father in view of the fact that he has recorded very different conclusions regarding his recognition of the voice as being/not being that of his son – does the Ruling’s embracing language ...
“None of the other witnesses were able to hear the words heard by Dr. Reich. The Court heard testimony about ‘listener bias' , where a listener with a biased outlook, often due to knowledge of underlying facts, makes conclusions to support his or her preconceived notions. It was hypothesized that Dr. Reich, who took up the case based upon personal interest, subconsciously heard identifiable words. The Court finds that Dr. Reich’s testimony regarding the amplified tapes would confuse issues, mislead the jury and, therefore, should be excluded from trial."
... also invite/encourage/allow the Defense to counter that familial testimony by calling one or more of its own experts to inform the Jury about “listener bias” and thereby avoid the trap of calling a competing Zimmerman to the stand to opine that the voice heard screaming was that of the defendant – perhaps opening the door for the Prosecution to demand that George Zimmerman scream for the jury’s edification?
Or, is the Prosecution going to be permitted to make that demand with no other prerequisite other than the 911 Tape’s introduction into evidence?
G
ETA:
One of the prosecution's audio "experts" claimed to have spent 700 hours working on the case. Talk about bilking the taxpayers ...
And, according to his testimony, he isn't done yet! But, to be fair, I think that the 700 hours included time spent while on his own dime or on the loose change of a newspaper. However, I would never swear that I understood Doctor Reich ... about anything.
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -