Zimmerman Released On Bond

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Zimmerman was released on bond today on $150,000 bond. CNN said that he only had to put $15,000 of that bond. According to ABC legal analyst Dan Abrams, 90% of the time a person with circumstances matching Zimmerman is released on bond.

mediaite.com/tv/gma-shows-exclusive-images-of-george-zimmermans-head-injuries-the-night-of-trayvons-death/

“If this wasn’t this case, I would say 90 percent,” Abrams replied. “But because this is such a high-profile case and there’s so much riding on it, I would say only 60 percent chance that he’ll be released. Typically in a case like this, when you have someone that hasn’t demonstrated to be a flight risk, who has ties to the community the way that he does, and doesn’t seem to be a danger to the community moving forward, based on his past behavior since this happened, you’d think he’d be released. But in this case, not so sure.”

The evidence does tend to show Zimmerman is guilty. I would have preferred to see him stay in jail.


WEB

[Locke9-05]

What evidence tends to show Zimmerman is guilty? The evidence I've seen suggests that he actually was acting in self defense.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

What evidence tends to show Zimmerman is guilty? The evidence I've seen suggests that he actually was acting in self defense.

The evidence I've repeatedly shown to you.

[Locke9-05]

George Zimmerman prepares for release from jail; lawyer visits

George Zimmerman's lawyer visited him Saturday in a Florida jail as he prepared for his release on bail, which could occur mid-week.

Attorney Mark O'Mara said it would take several days before Zimmerman is released, as his family has been having trouble putting together enough money for collateral. Zimmerman also must be fitted with an electronic monitoring device and O'Mara must find him a secure location.

On Friday, a judge set bond at $150,000 for Zimmerman, who has been charged with second-degree murder in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26. In Florida, which has a "Use a gun and you’re done" law, those convicted of second-degree murder are sentenced to 20 years to life.
Advertise | AdChoices

During Friday’s hearing, Zimmerman surprised witnesses by speaking out for the first time publicly and reaching out to Martin’s parents, who were in the courtroom.

"I am sorry for the loss of your son," Zimmerman said. He wore a suit, a gray tie and a chain wrapped around his waist. It appeared he also was wearing a bullet-proof vest beneath his white button-up shirt. "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not."

Zimmerman’s bail set at $150,000; he apologizes to Trayvon Martin’s parents

As the case made international headlines, supporters of Martin’s family accused Zimmerman, a self-proclaimed neighborhood watch guard in his gated community, of racially profiling the teen, who wore a hooded sweatshirt while walking to the home of his father's fiancee. Zimmerman’s defenders point to the fact that he is half Peruvian as proof that he is not racist and say that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

On Thursday, the night before the bail hearing, Zimmerman asked to speak with Martin’s parents, but they refused, NBC Miami reported.

Benjamin Crump, the Martin family lawyer, said the family found it crass that Zimmerman was reaching out for the first time at his bond hearing. Zimmerman said his lawyers had advised him not to speak publicly.

Legal observers across the country, however, said the bond hearing denoted hallmarks of a savvy defense attorney.

Zimmerman’s lawyer interrogated a state investigator about the probable cause affidavit, which outlines the state’s case against Zimmerman. It was an unlikely move for a bond hearing, but it may have highlighted weaknesses in the state’s case, legal observers told The Associated Press on Friday.

Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. The affidavit says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

But Gilbreath also said Zimmerman's claim that Martin was slamming his head against the sidewalk just before he shot the teenager was "not consistent with the evidence we found." He gave no details.

Lawyers not involved in the case said it was strategically smart because the investigator's statements could be used later to contradict other testimony or to decide how to question other witnesses.

"I thought it was a really great thing to do," said Tom Mesereau, a Los Angeles attorney whose clients have included singer Michael Jackson and actor Robert Blake. "He used the hearing to get information that can only help his defense. What was supposed to be strictly a hearing for bail, he used it as a discovery device, and was able to nail the investigator into making very, very pointed statements about the investigation and about what evidence they have."

Zimmerman's attorney is certainly sharp to have used this tactic so early in the process. The investigator has now admitted that there is not enough evidence to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin confronted him at his vehicle, despite that the probable cause affidavit made the affirmative claim that "Zimmerman confronted Martin." He did say that Zimmerman's claim regarding having his head slammed into the ground before firing the shot was "not consistent with the evidence" found, but he wouldn't go into detail about it. One thing is for sure, the prosecution's case is looking weaker and weaker. I would be surprised if the defense isn't able to at least inspire reasonable doubt in the jurors, and assuming that there's a fair trial with a jury full of jurors who are not predisposed to judging Zimmerman one way or the other, I would guess he will not be convicted.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

George Zimmerman prepares for release from jail; lawyer visits



Zimmerman's attorney is certainly sharp to have used this tactic so early in the process. The investigator has now admitted that there is not enough evidence to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin confronted him at his vehicle, despite that the probable cause affidavit made the affirmative claim that "Zimmerman confronted Martin." He did say that Zimmerman's claim regarding having his head slammed into the ground before firing the shot was "not consistent with the evidence" found, but he wouldn't go into detail about it. One thing is for sure, the prosecution's case is looking weaker and weaker. I would be surprised if the defense isn't able to at least inspire reasonable doubt in the jurors, and assuming that there's a fair trial with a jury full of jurors who are not predisposed to judging Zimmerman one way or the other, I would guess he will not be convicted.

The Sanford Police Department has their head so far up their rear end it might not be possible to say that this officer weakens their case. Another district attorney said that the DA's office has more proof to show. None of this is to say that any more evidence is needed to at least show manslaughter since there is the voice analysis crying for help which was not Zimmerman's.

Also, if Zimmerman takes the stand, his character comes into issue and thus his prior criminal offenses all get to be brought up.

[Locke9-05]

The Sanford Police Department has their head so far up their rear end it might not be possible to say that this officer weakens their case. Another district attorney said that the DA's office has more proof to show. None of this is to say that any more evidence is needed to at least show manslaughter since there is the voice analysis crying for help which was not Zimmerman's.

If the prosecution ends up relying on the "expert" witnesses who say this, they're going to face hurdles, mainly regarding the credibility and "expertise" of the witnesses:


About Those Audio Forensic Experts…

by Dan Linehan on April 3, 2012



Two experts in the field of forensic voice identification, Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, were hired by the Orlando Sentinel to review George Zimmerman’s call to police along with the 911 calls right before the shooting.

They both decided the voice screaming for help on the 911 calls was not George Zimmerman, and each expert arrived at that conclusion by independent methods.

Tom Owen is mentioned first in the article. He’s described as a forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services, LLC.

Let’s take a closer look at the process he used.

After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman’s voice to the 911 call screams.

“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,” Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman’s voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he’d expect higher than 90 percent.

“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare.

That raises some concerns. Tom Owen apparently compared Zimmerman’s normal speaking voice on a dispatch call, with high-pitched, terrified screaming that was recorded in the background of later 911 calls

In our world, “that’s the home run,” Owen says.

I was pretty stunned that he could be so sure. After all, the computer program is looking for similarities in the vocal patterns. How many can it possibly find when pattern A is completely normal, laid back speech and pattern B is hysterical screaming?

I wanted to investigate this a bit further and looked into downloading the software Tom Owen used.

But this proved to be extremely difficult, a license for the software costs nearly $5,000.



That’s a pretty hefty price to pay to test this software out…

After a few more minutes of research, I found out that the Easy Voice Biometrics web domain is actually owned by Tom Owen himself.



So what Tom Owen is actually doing here, is using his own home-grown software to attempt to determine the similarities in speech markers between two radically different types of voice patterns and claiming that it is accurate “beyond scientific certainty.”

Beyond scientific certainty is a pretty strong statement.

There doesn’t seem to be any disclosure in the Orlando Sentinel article that Tom Owen owns EasyVoiceBiometrics.com, nor any that he was using his own software package to do the analysis.

I’m not sure whether the Orlando Sentinel author realizes it, but that could easily be construed as a conflict of interest, particularly when the software is currently being sold for $5,000 per license. There’s an extremely transparent profit motive for Tom Owen to promote his product in any way that he can, especially at that price.

Since Tom Owen has staked his reputation on this, and has said point-blank that this software is so accurate that he knows “with reasonable scientific certainty” that it’s not Zimmerman on the 911 calls, the software must at least be extremely thoroughly tested, right?

I emailed Mr. Owen to double-check.



Doesn’t sound reassuring, does it?

It also says, on Easy Voice Biometric’s own web site, that the software is less than a month old.

This is especially strange, because the Orlando Sentinel article says:

As recently as January, Owen used the same technology to identify accused murderer Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.

How could Owen have been using the same technology in that case when the web site says the software was only released three weeks ago?

It lists a launch date of March 7th, 2012 on the news section of the site:



Since Owen referred me to TracerTek.com, I checked out that site as well.

TracerTek.com and EasyVoiceBiometrics.com appear to be using the same web site template, just with different information filled in.

It appears Jeff Klinedinst is involved with both. He is listed as the VP of Marketing on TracerTek and he did the YouTube demo videos for Easy Voice Biometrics.

Here’s a demo video Jeff put together for Easy Voice Biometrics.



The software appears to work fine if someone alters their voice slightly, or if there is light music playing in the background.

But there certainly isn’t anything in the demos about Easy Voice Biometrics offering “reasonable scientific certainty” when someone is screaming in panic on the background of a 911 call.

So where exactly is this “scientific certainty” coming from?

The second expert, Ed Primeau, doesn’t “believe” in Biometric Analysis, but doesn’t say why.

Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology’s use in courtroom settings.

Ed simply listened to the recordings. Then he decided the noises were Trayvon Martin because of the “tone of the voice” while reading Mother Jones.

“I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt,” Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. “That’s a young man screaming.”

Nevermind that there was an eyewitness to the fight who clearly states it was George Zimmerman yelling out for help. Or that Zimmerman is cited in the original police report as saying he was yelling for help. Or that the yells much more accurately portray someone who is screaming during an assault, rather than someone begging for their life at gunpoint.

Both Primeau and Owen report that they are credentialed by the American College Forensic Examiners Institute.

Sadly, it turns out there is an entire suite of these “American Forensic Board” sites, on almost any topic you can think of, which all seem to be ran by the same person, a gentleman named Dr. O’Block who claims to have nearly a dozen degrees himself.



Once again, most of these sites use the same basic template and only change cursory details, making it difficult to gauge how legitimate the boards are, if at all.

Tom Owen also lists things like this:

Instructor “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007

As prestigious as the “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” sounds, there is no such brick and mortar institute. It is actually a “division” of Owen Investigations, LLC. Tom Owen is basically claiming he was an instructor at his own unaccredited university.

I’m sure we’ll hear more about this in the upcoming weeks, since both of these “experts” have sparked a lot of controversy with their statements and placed their reputations on the line.

So between Tom Owen's sketchy looking credibility, the fact that his "expertise" can't really even be verified, the fact that many of his references for his expertise include his instructor "position" at his own unaccredited university, the fact that the software he used to make his "conclusion" is licensed to him and that presents a major conflict of interest, which the defense would have a field day with if he were brought in to testify, and things like this, I would say that the prosecution should probably think twice before using either of these "expert witnesses." I could be wrong, but I would venture to guess that the reason their claims were not included in the probable cause affidavit is that the prosecution was well aware of the shady and sketchy nature of the claims made by these so-called "experts." They could have gone with "expert" testimony for the probable cause affidavit, but instead they went with Martin's mother's opinion of whose voice was heard in the background of the 911 calls. I would consider that a step down from using third party unbiased expert witnesses, considering how incredibly unlikely and unfeasible it would be to even have any kind of potential expectation for Martin's mother to identify the voice as Zimmerman's, even if it was. There's no way she would testify "that's actually not my son, that must be Zimmerman," after Zimmerman shot her son, even if it was in self-defense. So I guess time will tell whether or not the "expert witnesses" are used in court, but considering all the dirt that this one investigative journalist managed to get on his own without even doing a whole lot of work, my guess is that any criminal defense attorney worth his or her salt would have a lot of fun discrediting the so-called "expertise" of those witnesses if they were to take the stand.

Also, if Zimmerman takes the stand, his character comes into issue and thus his prior criminal offenses all get to be brought up.

I don't think he really has much of a "criminal record," so to speak. He shoved a police officer when alcohol was involved at one point in time, but that charge was lessened due to him taking an alcohol education class. As for any other alleged offenses or situations, his family and friends weighed in on that, recently documented at the time of his bond hearing:

More details about Zimmerman emerge during bond hearing

For nearly two months, George Zimmerman has been largely a cipher, a riddle whose voice has been heard only in 911 calls reporting a young man acting "real suspicious."

On Friday, the world learned more about Zimmerman as he, his wife and parents testified during a hearing in Sanford, Florida, to decide whether he would be released on bond while awaiting trial on a second-degree murder charge in the February 26 death of Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman's wife depicted him as a man she has never seen angry. His father said he was a truthful man who had long been concerned with helping others. And his mother said he had organized a campaign to "get justice" for a homeless man who had been beaten in Sanford, as well as mentoring a 14-year-old African-American boy from a dangerous Orlando neighborhood.

Zimmerman has acknowledged killing Martin during an encounter in his Sanford neighborhood, saying he shot in self-defense. Critics have depicted the Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer as a racist who profiled Martin because he was African-American.

His family said nothing could be further from the truth.

"I know that he is very protective of people, very protective of homeless people and also of children" -- regardless of their race, Gladys Zimmerman said in testimony meant to prove to Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. that Zimmerman would not be a threat to the community if allowed to leave jail while awaiting trial..

She said he has been a mentoring the 14-year-old for three years even though the program he had joined shut down after only nine months because of the economy.

She said she begged him not to go because of the danger.

"He said, 'Mom, if I don't go, they don't have nobody,'" Gladys Zimmerman said.
She said her son also participated in a 2010 campaign to "get justice" for an African-American homeless man who was seen in a videotape taken by an onlooker being struck by a man who later turned out to be the son of a Sanford police lieutenant.

"He went to churches. He put fliers on cars" and organized a meeting seeking help for the man, his mother testified.

He was recognized by the city for his efforts, his mother said.

CNN has not been able to confirm Zimmerman's participation in the campaign.

Zimmerman was studying criminal justice and wanted someday to be a judge or a magistrate, said his father, Robert Zimmerman Sr. -- who had also been a magistrate.

"He's always been concerned about people in society, so he wanted to be able to help somehow," the elder Zimmerman said.

Prosecutors sought to paint a darker picture of Zimmerman as a man with a violent past who could not be trusted to go free pending his trial.

Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda cited two incidents -- a 2005 case in which a police officer accused Zimmerman of battery and another incident in which a woman filed a domestic violence injunction against Zimmerman after a scuffle.

Zimmerman apologizes as judge sets $150,000 bond

In the 2005 case, Zimmerman was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer and obstruction of justice after tussling with an alcoholic beverage control officer. The charges were later reduced to a misdemeanor after Zimmerman agreed to enter a diversion program and take an anger management class, according to testimony in Friday's hearing.

According to a police report of the incident, which de la Rionda read in court, Zimmerman refused a law enforcement officer's orders to back off, saying, "I don't care who you are" after the officer identified himself.

After a brief scuffle, the officer arrested Zimmerman.

But Zimmerman's family said Zimmerman told them that the officer never identified himself, and he was only trying to come to the aid of a friend who he had seen being shoved against the wall by a man in plainclothes.

"He felt his friend was in danger and he was just trying to protect his friend," said Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Nicole Zimmerman.

In the other case, de la Rionda said a woman filed papers in which she said Zimmerman smacked her in the mouth and "asked her how it felt," as well as grabbed her and threw her on a bed.

Timeline of events in Trayvon Martin case

Shellie Zimmerman said her understanding was that Zimmerman was only acting to protect himself after the woman scratched him and drew blood.

"Absolutely he is not a violent person nor a threat to the community," she said.

Zimmerman also took the stand, an unusual move in a bond hearing and a risky decision for any defendant in any criminal case, much less a one involving a murder charge, said his attorney Mark O'Mara.

It was his first public statement since the shooting.

"I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son," Zimmerman told Martin's parents Friday in what his attorney said was a risky and heartfelt apology from the witness stand. "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I was, and I did not know if he was armed or not."

This paints a different picture of Zimmerman than the one the prosecution will be trying to paint. He has many supportive people who will undoubtedly be willing to testify on his behalf regarding his character. The only real concrete "criminal" behavior documented was his scuffle with the officer, who he claimed was in plain clothes and was pushing his friend around. Even if the officer was in uniform, alcohol was involved, and Zimmerman has made amends for that particular incident. I have yet to see any other real significant criminal instance documented in Zimmerman's record. I still believe that the prosecution has their work cut out for them, especially if Zimmerman doesn't cop a plea. I sincerely doubt he will, because he and his attorney are probably aware that the prosecution overshot an appropriate charge in order to leave room for a plea bargain. But there is still no real concrete evidence to counter Zimmerman's contention that Martin confronted and attacked him while he was on his way back to his vehicle. At least not that the investigator in the case was able to find. I would say the prosecution's only real hope is if they happened to find some other concrete evidence--which hasn't been publicized yet--which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. If they don't have any evidence which can convince a jury of this beyond reasonable doubt, and if their evidence is weak enough for the defense to inspire reasonable doubt in the jury, as long as the jurors aren't predisposed to judging him one way or another before the trial, Zimmerman will walk.

[Locke9-05]

The prosecution is reportedly in hot water and their case is looking to be more and more in question:


George Zimmerman Tells Trayvon Martin's Parents 'I Am Sorry'

George Zimmerman stunned a Florida court today by taking the stand and apologizing to the parents of Trayvon Martin, who were sitting in the courtroom during Zimmerman's bond hearing.

"I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said addressing Martin's family directly.

Martin's father, Tracy Martin, cried tears of anger after the apology, his attorney Ben Crump told reporters after the hearing.

Zimmerman took the stand wearing a dark suit with his hands shackled to a belt around his waist. He appeared to be wearing a bullet-proof vest beneath his loose-fitting suit.

His surprising testimony came the same day that ABC News exclusively obtained a photograph showing the bloodied back of Zimmerman's head, which was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed Martin. The photo could give credence to Zimmerman's claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.



The bond hearing concluded this morning with Judge Kenneth Lester agreeing to allow Zimmerman, who is charged with second degree murder, to post a $150,000 bond to get out of jail. The prosecution had argued that Zimmerman should be denied bail or that it should be set at $1 million.

Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, told reporters after the hearing that he does not expect Zimmerman to be out of jail for a couple of days because it will take some time to come up with the money for bail.

After the court hearing, O'Mara rejected the suggestion that they were "pandering" to the parents, and said Zimmerman wanted to apologize after hearing the parents on TV said that he had never done so.

"He wanted to respond. I took it that the family wanted to hear from him and he wanted to say it… It should have been done in a private setting but that wasn't afforded him," O'Mara said.

Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin's parents, said the family was furious that Zimmerman could "give this self serving apology so he could get a bond." One of the lawyers for the family called the apology "disingenuous and insincere."

Zimmerman, 28, is being held on charges of second-degree murder for the Feb. 26 shooting of Martin, 17, which could carry a life sentence if he is convicted.

The exclusive photo obtained by ABC News shows blood trickling down the back of Zimmerman's head from two cuts. It also shows a possible contusion forming on the crown of his head. The original police report that night notes that the back of Zimmerman's head was wet, and that he was bleeding from the nose and head.

Zimmerman told police that night that he shot and killed the teenager in self-defense after Martin punched him and pounced on him. Zimmerman told police that Martin then bashed his head into the concrete sidewalk during the altercation that took place in the tidy middle-class development of the Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Fla.

Zimmerman was treated at the scene by paramedics, then cuffed and driven in a police cruiser to the Sanford police station. He was questioned for hours and later released. In police surveillance video obtained last month by ABC News, Zimmerman's wounds are not apparent, and there were no bandages on his head.

Zimmerman was not admitted to a hospital or given stitches the night of the incident.

The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the scuffle that night, but did hear it. The person recalled seeing Martin's prostrate body on the wet grass and said the gunpowder burns on Martin's gray hoodie were clearly visible.

The photographer said that after the shooting, Zimmerman asked the photographer to call his wife. When the photographer asked him what to say, Zimmerman blurted out, "Man, just tell her I shot someone."

Investigators have seen the photo.

Crump, the Martin family attorney, is skeptical.

"How bad could it have been if they didn't take him to the hospital [and] didn't stitch him up," he said in a statement to ABC News in response to the image. "The special prosecutor has seen all the evidence and still believes George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin."

Testifying today, Zimmerman's father, Robert, a former magistrate, told the court that the day after Martin was killed he saw injuries his son suffered.

"His face was swollen quite a bit," Robert Zimmerman said. "There was a protective cover over his nose, his lip was cut and there were two vertical gashes on the back of his head."

Zimmerman's parents and wife Shellie testified at the hearing by phone because they did not want to make a public appearance out of fear for their safety.

In a dramatic moment during the hearing, a detective, under questioning from O'Mara, admitted that it has no clear evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin first.

Zimmerman's family testified that he should be granted bail because, they said, he is not a violent person.

"He's absolutely not a violent person or a threat to the community," said Shellie Zimmerman, who is a nursing student.

In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested in Orange County, Fla., and accused of battering a police officer and obstructing justice. He pleaded to a lower charge and was ordered to attend an anger management program.

Both his wife and father testified that Zimmerman had seen two men in civilian clothes shoving his friend against a wall and that the officers never identified themselves as police. However, a police affidavit claimed that when the officers showed their badges Zimmerman said, "I don't care who you are."

In a second incident, prosecutor Bernie de la rionda said that a woman got an injunction against Zimmerman after he pushed her and slapped her mouth. Shellie Zimmerman testified that her husband was defending himself after the woman attacked him and drew blood. She said that Zimmerman got an injunction against the woman.

I know there was a little crossover of stories between this most recent article I posted and the article I posted prior. The main difference was the photographic evidence obtained by ABC, which clearly shows the very bloody back of Zimmerman's head. The photo was reportedly taken very shortly after the physical altercation between Zimmerman and Martin.

[Locke9-05]

Dershowitz Blasts Zimmerman Prosecution: 'Not Only Immoral, But Stupid'

Dershowitz Blasts Zimmerman Prosecution: 'Not Only Immoral, But Stupid'



With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”

Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …

"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"

Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."



Photo Of Zimmerman's Bloodied Head Released - ABC Video

If the prosecution knew about the photo, or was at least aware of such photos--which they should have been, since the state investigators would have access to medical documentation taken at the scene of the incident--then their affidavit is based on an unethical suppression of the truth, or a lie. It could easily be considered perjury. If the prosecutor was not aware of the photo or the evidence regarding Zimmerman's bloodied and bruised head when she formed the probable cause affidavit, then she's incompetent or simply isn't doing her job well enough. Either way, it's looking more and more like the prosecution is simply not going to be able to pull this off.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Well first, the source of your article claiming that there is trouble with the audio experts is wagist.com which is in the tank for George Zimmerman and they have suggested such ridiculous things as Trayvon Martin ambushed George Zimmerman to impress his Martin's girlfriend, which is moronic. So the suggestion from that article comes from that same moronic group.

Secondly, let's go through the "concerns" of wagist one by one and see how not only that they don't have merit, but also how it shows that they're morons.

* "After a few more minutes of research, I found out that the Easy Voice Biometrics web domain is actually owned by Tom Owen himself."

- * Gasp * The man who gave the report of the voice comparison software made the software and owns the company!!!! Cue dramatic music. That's about as alarming as a lawyer...being the owner of the law firm, or a theorist having written the book that originated the theory, or a tow trucker owning the tow truck company. Stop the presses. Whoa! To think there is something bizarre about this shows how dumb wagist is.

Now let's look at the highlighted text which JL thinks is important for some inexplicable reason:

There doesn’t seem to be any disclosure in the Orlando Sentinel article that Tom Owen owns EasyVoiceBiometrics.com, nor any that he was using his own software package to do the analysis.

I’m not sure whether the Orlando Sentinel author realizes it, but that could easily be construed as a conflict of interest, particularly when the software is currently being sold for $5,000 per license. There’s an extremely transparent profit motive for Tom Owen to promote his product in any way that he can, especially at that price.

Here we again see the agenda-driven wagist making conclusions. Who contacted who here? That's what wagist forgets. If I recall correctly, the newspaper contacted the audio experts, not vice versa, so contrary to wagists dishonest claims that the audio experts are promoting their product, they were the ones who were sought out and then offer their advice. Where is the proof that they were promoting a product? Seems like a complete lie manufactured by wagist.

* Next up:

Ed simply listened to the recordings. Then he decided the noises were Trayvon Martin because of the “tone of the voice” while reading Mother Jones.

This comment by wagist is completely dishonest. Look at the word choice "decided." Decided is when you say something will be and it becomes so. The audio expert didn't decide that it would be Trayvon's voice. He has no power to decide that; that's what he heard and reasoned. So to say he "decided" it, like he thinks he's god and thus commanded it and it was so, is a strawman argument and is biased. Also he didn't do it while "reading Mother Jones." He was listening to audio from a link to Mother Jones. Wagist against posits a strawman: that he simply read a blog and was reading when he should have been listening and simply reiterates whatever some blogger says, rather than use his expert opinion. That's quite a theory and of course wagist presents no evidence at all. They simply and lamely invent a mistake where there's none. That's one of the thing that makes wagist so lame. They make arguments but only by innuendo and suggestion. They have neither the decency, nor the evidence to actually make their arguments in a straight forward manner.

* Next up:

It also says, on Easy Voice Biometric’s own web site, that the software is less than a month old.

This is especially strange, because the Orlando Sentinel article says:

As recently as January, Owen used the same technology to identify accused murderer Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.

How could Owen have been using the same technology in that case when the web site says the software was only released three weeks ago?

OK, so here's the controversy: a newspaper said Owen used "the same technology" in another case, but Owen's software is only a few weeks old. How is this a controversy? It's supposedly a controversy because wagist equates "same technology" with same "software." Are they synonymous? Not necessarily. Cell phone TECHNOLOGY has permitted me to make calls for years. Does that mean that I used the same model of cell phone over the years. I can go down the line with computers, cars and software too. "Technology" and a specific model of equipment using that technology is not synonymous. Has wagist shown any evidence that the two are synonymous? No. So once again, all wagist does is list another example of their bias manifesting itself as innuendo and list that as actual proof of somebody else doing something wrong.

* Next up:

"Both Primeau and Owen report that they are credentialed by the American College Forensic Examiners Institute.

Sadly, it turns out there is an entire suite of these “American Forensic Board” sites, on almost any topic you can think of, which all seem to be ran by the same person, a gentleman named Dr. O’Block who claims to have nearly a dozen degrees himself."

I followed the links and again all it is is wagist spin. Dr. O'Block's webpage says he "founded" those groups, not that he "ran" all the groups. That's merely wagist lying again. Actually, Owen is the chairman of the group he lists on his website so Owen runs that group, not O'Block. Secondly, wagist omits this from the website: "CFEI currently has twelve advisory boards that relate to the many aspects of forensics." So while wagist makes it seem untoward as if the boards are anything ranging from archery to telemarketing to international finance to vacuum repair, in reality the boards are all related to each other. They are all about forensics, so what's suspicious about that?

Also, Owens resume is fairly lengthy and this too is omitted by wagist. Here's what they omit:

http://www.owlinvestigations.com/about.html

Thomas J. Owen also serves as the Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society's Standards Group SC-03-WG-12 on Forensic Audio. Mr. Owen is also the Chairman Emeritus of The American Board of Recorded Evidence.

Mr. Owen Worked at New York City's Lincoln Center Archives for eleven years as Chief Engineer. He has appeared on network television and on radio discussing audio and video matters. Mr. Owen Lectures extensively in the United States and has numerous publications in the Forensic Examiner.

Mr. Owen's qualifications as an expert witness have been demonstrated in more than thirty-five states for both prosecution and defense.

Organizations

Mr. Owen has diligently and comprehensively examined the areas of Forensic Audio, Video, and Voice Identification in great detail since 1981. There are over seventy-five publications, presentations, and recordings available from the Audio Engineering Society, The American College of Forensic Examiners and others.

Mr. Owen has appeared as a Consultant to ABC Nightline, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX 5 NY, NPR Radio, NOVA, Taipei, Chinese Television, Dateline, 60 Minutes, Law & Order, Forensic Files, CSI, CSI Miami, Lie to Me, Access Hollywood, 48 Hours, 20/20 and other Networks and Television Programs.

B.A. History 1969
Bellarmine College, Louisville, Kentucky
Certificate of Achievement, Electro-Acoustics Synergetic Audio Concepts, 1983
Completion of Voice Identification Course, 1985
Certification as Voice Identification Examiner, July 17, 1986 by the
International Association for Identification,
Life Member Kentucky Division
Life Member New Jersey Division
Audio Engineering Society NY Chapter Board of Directors 1989-1991 1996-1998
Chairman (1991 to Present) Audio Engineering Society WG0-12 Working Group
"Forensic Audio"
The American Board of Forensic Examiners - BCFE, ABFE Fellow, Life Member,
Board Certified, Homeland Security Advisory Board
Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Recorded Evidence - American College of Forensic
Examiners 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Diplomate in Audio/Video Authenticity and Voice Identification
Instructor "Southern Conference Seminar" Western Kentucky University 1992
Instructor "New York Institute for Forensic Audio" 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007
Special Deputy, Warren County Sheriff's Department, Bowling Green, KY
Experience in the Recording Arts, 35 years

Court Qualified as expert in voice identification, audio and video authentication, signal processing, tape enhancement, recording industry practices.

To date: New York Southern District, New York Eastern District, New York, Buffalo, and New York State Court. Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Hartford, CT; Bridgeport, CT; New York Rockland County; Raleigh, NC; Newark, NJ; Mays Landing, NJ; Tottawa, NJ; Nashville, TN; Savannah, GA; Carmel, NY; Dover, DE; Tulsa, OK; Louisville, KY; Los Angeles, CA; Bowling Green, KY; Alexandria, VA; Zenia, OH; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO; NY Bronx Superior Court, Manhattan Supreme Court; NYPD Arbitration Hearing Board; Morganville, West Virginia; Fresno, CA; Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; Washington DC; Maryland; Florida; Idaho, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hartford, CT, Evanston, IL, Somerville, NJ, Brooklyn, NY, Miami, FL and others.

So let's just go with the largest thing on his resume: he's testified as an expert in 35 different legal cases and has been interviewed as an audio expert in a dozen media organizations, so what's the conspiracy theory now, that he's tricked all those judges and media organizations? Also, there's other organizations listed in his resume which are not attacked by wagist. Why not? If this guy is a phony, how come wagist has not attacked all the organizations he has listed as being certified by. So those organizations are legitimate, he is certified by them and wagist simply omits that information. Who's really the phony here Owen or wagist?

* Finally there's this: with the red highlighted by JL for reasons unknown:

As prestigious as the “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” sounds, there is no such brick and mortar institute. It is actually a “division” of Owen Investigations, LLC. Tom Owen is basically claiming he was an instructor at his own unaccredited university.

At no point did Owen ever call his instituted an "unaccredited university." There is mere spin by wagist. Also, upon reading the entire link, there is no such indication that it is a "brick and mortar institute" as described by Wagist.

Here it is in full:

2011 International Forensic Audio Enhancement Symposium

May 2nd, 3rd and 4th, 2011
9:30 to 5:00 PM Daily

Cost: $ 1,500.00 Registration Fee for all 3 Days

Held at:
Owen Forensic Services, LLC.
758 South Middlesex Ave.
Colonia, NJ 07067

Instructors:
Tom Owen - Owen Forensic Services LLC
Alexey Khitrov- Speech Technology Center
Alan French - Cedar Technology
Curtis Crowe - Tracer Technologies
Charles Van Winkle - Adobe Audition
Bruce Bartone- iZotope, Inc.

Now any honest person can see that all this is a training course that lasts for four days and you get maybe a lecture and some instruction and maybe a certificate from half a dozen experts if you pay $1,500.00 to attend and you pass their standards. Does the word "Institute" exaggerate what this is? Sure. * News flash * everyone exaggerates on their resume. What should they call it: a weekend get together? This is no more a lie than the common practice of secretary calling themselves "administrative assistants" or a handy man calling himself a "technician." This is the standard in the WORLD LABOR MARKET to my knowledge, but of course to biased Wagist they single this guy out and call it malfeasance. Also, it should be noted that they make this guy sound like HE IS THE INSTITUTE, and thus dishonestly omitting that the course is taught by half a dozen other experts.

Ironically, by countering wagist's biased bullshit what I learned was that this expert has been called up in 35 other legal cases thus that makes it clear that there is a lot of precedence for this kind of forensic evidence, further strengthening the case against Zimmerman.

[Locke9-05]

Well first, the source of your article claiming that there is trouble with the audio experts is wagist.com which is in the tank for George Zimmerman and they have suggested such ridiculous things as Trayvon Martin ambushed George Zimmerman to impress his Martin's girlfriend, which is moronic. So the suggestion from that article comes from that same moronic group.

The group's information posted is still valid as information until it is discredited as false or inaccurate. Simply throwing all their information under the bus due to "bias" is the ad hominem circumstantial logi

Secondly, let's go through the "concerns" of wagist one by one and see how not only that they don't have merit, but also how it shows that they're morons.

* "After a few more minutes of research, I found out that the Easy Voice Biometrics web domain is actually owned by Tom Owen himself."

- * Gasp * The man who gave the report of the voice comparison software made the software and owns the company!!!! Cue dramatic music. That's about as alarming as a lawyer...being the owner of the law firm, or a theorist having written the book that originated the theory, or a tow trucker owning the tow truck company. Stop the presses. Whoa! To think there is something bizarre about this shows how dumb wagist is.

Your argument falsely implies Wagist thinks that it's "bizarre." The article never suggests it's "bizarre," it simply points it out as a fact.

Now let's look at the highlighted text which JL thinks is important for some inexplicable reason:

I don't think it was necessary for your argument to refer to something I highlighted with personal and condescending speculation regarding what I--as a poster--not my arguments "thinks is important for some inexplicable reason." That's nothing but pure condescending speculation regarding my motives for highlighting something--speculation that isn't even necessarily correct.

There doesn’t seem to be any disclosure in the Orlando Sentinel article that Tom Owen owns EasyVoiceBiometrics.com, nor any that he was using his own software package to do the analysis.

I’m not sure whether the Orlando Sentinel author realizes it, but that could easily be construed as a conflict of interest, particularly when the software is currently being sold for $5,000 per license. There’s an extremely transparent profit motive for Tom Owen to promote his product in any way that he can, especially at that price.

Here we again see the agenda-driven wagist making conclusions. Who contacted who here? That's what wagist forgets. If I recall correctly, the newspaper contacted the audio experts, not vice versa, so contrary to wagists dishonest claims that the audio experts are promoting their product, they were the ones who were sought out and then offer their advice. Where is the proof that they were promoting a product? Seems like a complete lie manufactured by wagist.

The article clearly states in the very beginning sentence:

Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, were hired by the Orlando Sentinel to review George Zimmerman’s call to police along with the 911 calls right before the shooting.

Therefore this argument claiming that Wagist deliberately omitted something is completely untrue. It's right there, it's the first sentence in the freaking ar

* Next up:

Ed simply listened to the recordings. Then he decided the noises were Trayvon Martin because of the “tone of the voice” while reading Mother Jones.

This comment by wagist is completely dishonest. Look at the word choice "decided." Decided is when you say something will be and it becomes so. The audio expert didn't decide that it would be Trayvon's voice. He has no power to decide that; that's what he heard and reasoned. So to say he "decided" it, like he thinks he's god and thus commanded it and it was so, is a strawman argument and is biased. Also he didn't do it while "reading Mother Jones." He was listening to audio from a link to Mother Jones. Wagist against posits a strawman: that he simply read a blog and was reading when he should have been listening and simply reiterates whatever some blogger says, rather than use his expert opinion. That's quite a theory and of course wagist presents no evidence at all. They simply and lamely invent a mistake where there's none. That's one of the thing that makes wagist so lame. They make arguments but only by innuendo and suggestion. They have neither the decency, nor the evidence to actually make their arguments in a straight forward manner.

The dictionary definition of the word "decide."

"Decide" - Dictionary.com

1.to solve or conclude (a question, controversy, or struggle) by giving victory to one side: The judge decided the case in favor of the plaintiff.

2. to determine or settle (something in dispute or doubt): to decide an argument.

The dictionary definition of the term "decide" does not support the assertions made by your argument. As for Wagist's description of how the "expert" came to the conclusion, they linked to a news source which supported their description. It's in both the original article and the quote of the article I posted

* Next up:

It also says, on Easy Voice Biometric’s own web site, that the software is less than a month old.

This is especially strange, because the Orlando Sentinel article says:

As recently as January, Owen used the same technology to identify accused murderer Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.

How could Owen have been using the same technology in that case when the web site says the software was only released three weeks ago?

OK, so here's the controversy: a newspaper said Owen used "the same technology" in another case, but Owen's software is only a few weeks old. How is this a controversy? It's supposedly a controversy because wagist equates "same technology" with same "software." Are they synonymous? Not necessarily. Cell phone TECHNOLOGY has permitted me to make calls for years. Does that mean that I used the same model of cell phone over the years. I can go down the line with computers, cars and software too. "Technology" and a specific model of equipment using that technology is not synonymous. Has wagist shown any evidence that the two are synonymous? No. So once again, all wagist does is list another example of their bias manifesting itself as innuendo and list that as actual proof of somebody else doing something wrong.

While this is true, it would actually be the Orlando Sentinel's fault for using wording which could be so loosely interpreted. Perhaps they should have specified which case he used the same technology in and exactly what the technology was and how it differed from his own software.

* Next up:

"Both Primeau and Owen report that they are credentialed by the American College Forensic Examiners Institute.

Sadly, it turns out there is an entire suite of these “American Forensic Board” sites, on almost any topic you can think of, which all seem to be ran by the same person, a gentleman named Dr. O’Block who claims to have nearly a dozen degrees himself."

I followed the links and again all it is is wagist spin. Dr. O'Block's webpage says he "founded" those groups, not that he "ran" all the groups. That's merely wagist lying again. Actually, Owen is the chairman of the group he lists on his website so Owen runs that group, not O'Block. Secondly, wagist omits this from the website: "CFEI currently has twelve advisory boards that relate to the many aspects of forensics." So while wagist makes it seem untoward as if the boards are anything ranging from archery to telemarketing to international finance to vacuum repair, in reality the boards are all related to each other. They are all about forensics, so what's suspicious about that?

There is simply no way to verify their credibility.

Also, Owens resume is fairly lengthy and this too is omitted by wagist. Here's what they omit:

http://www.owlinvestigations.com/about.html

Thomas J. Owen also serves as the Chairman of the Audio Engineering Society's Standards Group SC-03-WG-12 on Forensic Audio. Mr. Owen is also the Chairman Emeritus of The American Board of Recorded Evidence.

Mr. Owen Worked at New York City's Lincoln Center Archives for eleven years as Chief Engineer. He has appeared on network television and on radio discussing audio and video matters. Mr. Owen Lectures extensively in the United States and has numerous publications in the Forensic Examiner.

Mr. Owen's qualifications as an expert witness have been demonstrated in more than thirty-five states for both prosecution and defense.

Organizations

Mr. Owen has diligently and comprehensively examined the areas of Forensic Audio, Video, and Voice Identification in great detail since 1981. There are over seventy-five publications, presentations, and recordings available from the Audio Engineering Society, The American College of Forensic Examiners and others.

Mr. Owen has appeared as a Consultant to ABC Nightline, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX 5 NY, NPR Radio, NOVA, Taipei, Chinese Television, Dateline, 60 Minutes, Law & Order, Forensic Files, CSI, CSI Miami, Lie to Me, Access Hollywood, 48 Hours, 20/20 and other Networks and Television Programs.

B.A. History 1969
Bellarmine College, Louisville, Kentucky
Certificate of Achievement, Electro-Acoustics Synergetic Audio Concepts, 1983
Completion of Voice Identification Course, 1985
Certification as Voice Identification Examiner, July 17, 1986 by the
International Association for Identification,
Life Member Kentucky Division
Life Member New Jersey Division
Audio Engineering Society NY Chapter Board of Directors 1989-1991 1996-1998
Chairman (1991 to Present) Audio Engineering Society WG0-12 Working Group
"Forensic Audio"
The American Board of Forensic Examiners - BCFE, ABFE Fellow, Life Member,
Board Certified, Homeland Security Advisory Board
Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Recorded Evidence - American College of Forensic
Examiners 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Diplomate in Audio/Video Authenticity and Voice Identification
Instructor "Southern Conference Seminar" Western Kentucky University 1992
Instructor "New York Institute for Forensic Audio" 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007
Special Deputy, Warren County Sheriff's Department, Bowling Green, KY
Experience in the Recording Arts, 35 years

Court Qualified as expert in voice identification, audio and video authentication, signal processing, tape enhancement, recording industry practices.

To date: New York Southern District, New York Eastern District, New York, Buffalo, and New York State Court. Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Hartford, CT; Bridgeport, CT; New York Rockland County; Raleigh, NC; Newark, NJ; Mays Landing, NJ; Tottawa, NJ; Nashville, TN; Savannah, GA; Carmel, NY; Dover, DE; Tulsa, OK; Louisville, KY; Los Angeles, CA; Bowling Green, KY; Alexandria, VA; Zenia, OH; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO; NY Bronx Superior Court, Manhattan Supreme Court; NYPD Arbitration Hearing Board; Morganville, West Virginia; Fresno, CA; Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; Washington DC; Maryland; Florida; Idaho, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hartford, CT, Evanston, IL, Somerville, NJ, Brooklyn, NY, Miami, FL and others.

So let's just go with the largest thing on his resume: he's testified as an expert in 35 different legal cases and has been interviewed as an audio expert in a dozen media organizations, so what's the conspiracy theory now, that he's tricked all those judges and media organizations? Also, there's other organizations listed in his resume which are not attacked by wagist. Why not? If this guy is a phony, how come wagist has not attacked all the organizations he has listed as being certified by. So those organizations are legitimate, he is certified by them and wagist simply omits that information. Who's really the phony here Owen or wagist?

* Finally there's this: with the red highlighted by JL for reasons unknown:

As prestigious as the “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” sounds, there is no such brick and mortar institute. It is actually a “division” of Owen Investigations, LLC. Tom Owen is basically claiming he was an instructor at his own unaccredited university.

At no point did Owen ever call his instituted an "unaccredited university." There is mere spin by wagist. Also, upon reading the entire link, there is no such indication that it is a "brick and mortar institute" as described by Wagist.

Here it is in full:

2011 International Forensic Audio Enhancement Symposium

May 2nd, 3rd and 4th, 2011
9:30 to 5:00 PM Daily

Cost: $ 1,500.00 Registration Fee for all 3 Days

Held at:
Owen Forensic Services, LLC.
758 South Middlesex Ave.
Colonia, NJ 07067

Instructors:
Tom Owen - Owen Forensic Services LLC
Alexey Khitrov- Speech Technology Center
Alan French - Cedar Technology
Curtis Crowe - Tracer Technologies
Charles Van Winkle - Adobe Audition
Bruce Bartone- iZotope, Inc.

Now any honest person can see that all this is a training course that lasts for four days and you get maybe a lecture and some instruction and maybe a certificate from half a dozen experts if you pay $1,500.00 to attend and you pass their standards. Does the word "Institute" exaggerate what this is? Sure. * News flash * everyone exaggerates on their resume. What should they call it: a weekend get together? This is no more a lie than the common practice of secretary calling themselves "administrative assistants" or a handy man calling himself a "technician." This is the standard in the WORLD LABOR MARKET to my knowledge, but of course to biased Wagist they single this guy out and call it malfeasance. Also, it should be noted that they make this guy sound like HE IS THE INSTITUTE, and thus dishonestly omitting that the course is taught by half a dozen other experts.

Ironically, by countering wagist's biased bullshit what I learned was that this expert has been called up in 35 other legal cases thus that makes it clear that there is a lot of precedence for this kind of forensic evidence, further strengthening the case against Zimmerman.

I'm willing to concede that Tom Owen is probably qualified and that the differing viewpoint offered by Wagist is probably not all accurate. However qualified Tom Own may be, however, it doesn't really strengthen the case against Zimmerman, especially given the other articles I posted with a new photo as evidence showing the back of Zimmerman's bloodied head and the witness testimony which says Zimmerman was beneath Martin crying for help. Zimmerman clearly suffered trauma to the back of his head, which supports the theory that Martin slammed his head into the ground. Why the hell would Martin be yelling "help!" while slamming Zimmerman's head into the ground? He clearly had the advantage in terms of height, age, size in general and fitness.