No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial

2seaoat wrote:Dreams......as usual.....the simplest legal concept....and you drop the ball.  There most certainly will be audio evidence and testimony at trial, including the tape of the screams.  These experts however will not be part of that testimony, nor will their scientific methods be used to determine who was screaming.   You need to slow down and read, and learn.....but in the meantime.....as usual......thank you for the smiles.

Seaoat, did read the title of the article? That's what it says. Am I correct? Where do you get off saying I dropped the ball? You simply try to jump out there and discount everything I post to try to discredit me. Are you jealous or what? I find that humorous. It's not my fault you make erroneous comments you can't substantiate.

2seaoat wrote:Not guilty!

An all woman jury........I figured you have not told us everything....I always sensed a feminine sensibility .........

Sir BP wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Not guilty!

An all woman jury........I figured you have not told us everything....I always sensed a feminine sensibility .........

Not guilty based on the fact that the State cannot prove Zimm "murdered" the teenager. Period.

But you'll play armchair quarterback anyway.

Seaoat says I DROPPED THE BALL in posting what the article caption says.LOL! He says there certainly will be audio testimony when the judge just ruled there wouldn't be. Double LOL!

2seaoat wrote:Seaoat says I DROPPED THE BALL in posting what the article caption says.LOL! He says there certainly will be audio testimony when the judge just ruled there wouldn't be. Double LOL!

You do not even understand what I posted.....the caption is simply wrong.   The tape will be played.  What will not be allowed is the expert testimony using two scientific methods.   You either need to get knowledgeable sources to cover your void of understanding, or you have to learn some basic things.  The tape will be played in court......guaranteed.   The motions to restrict the expert testimony will not stop other witnesses commenting on the tape which will be played.   You remain my court jester.....my own fool who entertains me......again thank you for the smiles.....I love this place.

No, I don't understand what you posted cuase you're crazier than hell! Why would you attribute an article link as to something I said? Then you go on and on saying I'm unknowledgable when that is what the article says. If the judge says there will be no expert testimony then there will be no expert testimony. Trayvon's parents can say it Trayvon and Zimmerman parents can say it's Zimmerman but the judge has ruled no expert testimony. Do you get that? The article explained that. You are certainly the fool w/ your silly comments that I said it.

2seaoat wrote:Your caption said......No audio testimony in Zimmerman trial.

It is wrong.  I corrected you.   A simple thank you would do.............

The article caption said it,Seaoat-not me. Besides you went on like fool trying to diminish me over it. Quite silly on your part.

Nekochan wrote:Dreams just posted from the ABC article headline:
 
Judge: No Audio Testimony in Zimmerman Trial


The headline is misleading, but in Dreams's defense, she isn't the one who made up the headline.  I have also been attacked on the forums for simply posting a headline directly from a news story.  Just because I use a headline from a news story in the title to a thread doesn't mean I agree with it or that it's my opinion

Exactly! Seaoat went on and on as if I wrote the story. Too funny!

2seaoat wrote:title to a thread doesn't mean I agree with it or that it's my opinion

It simply was wrong.  If you understood the judge's decision, you knew the title was wrong.   If ABC wants to publish a falsehood, it still is false. If someone wants to cut and paste, and does not understand the concepts the judge has ruled......then of course the error will be repeated.  It has been corrected, and I would simply suggest that people need to read and think.

2seaoat wrote:The article caption said it,Seaoat-not me. Besides you went on like fool trying to diminish me over it. Quite silly on your part.

When you cannot even understand when something is wrong and then post it as your thread title.....it needs to be corrected.  Nothing personal........just the facts jack........there will be audio testimony.   The tape will be played.   People will testify on that tape content.   What will not be allowed is two experts' testimony........If you choose to quote a child's view of the trial, it is your right.....if you expect me to stand silent when utter nonsense is being posted.....I will not......keep cutting and pasting trying to understand the world....sometimes it works......and sometimes it does not..........the audio will be admitted into evidence and there will be testimony on the same.

None of the experts testimony will be permitted. It clearly says that in the article. You attacked me personally for what the article said. It was just plain ass silly of you and you keep trying to justify that because you can't admit when you make an error. You do it all the time and then post some nonsensical defense. I guess we both laugh at each other. I know I do at you. LOL!

2seaoat wrote:Then attack the headline, not Dreams.  

Any knowledgeable person would not use that thread title in light of the judge's ruling......it was on the face incorrect.  Again, a simple thank you Seaoat for correcting the nonsense title to the thread would have sufficed.........as to a blow to the prosecution by not allowing their experts to testify.......that remains to be seen.......if there science was awful, and the defense had good rebuttal experts......it could have been a Waterloo for the Prosecutors......as I have said from the beginning......the tape means very little on what the state will try to prove, and we will have to see how the audio will meld with other prosecutor witnesses........As I have said repeatedly.....if folks think the tape is critical......then the defense will get a directed verdict at close of the state case.......this will not happen.

2seaoat wrote:Then attack the headline, not Dreams.  

Any knowledgeable person would not use that thread title in light of the judge's ruling......it was on the face incorrect.  Again, a simple thank you Seaoat for correcting the nonsense title to the thread would have sufficed.........as to a blow to the prosecution by not allowing their experts to testify.......that remains to be seen.......if there science was awful, and the defense had good rebuttal experts......it could have been a Waterloo for the Prosecutors......as I have said from the beginning......the tape means very little on what the state will try to prove, and we will have to see how the audio will meld with other prosecutor witnesses........As I have said repeatedly.....if folks think the tape is critical......then the defense will get a directed verdict at close of the state case.......this will not happen.

See what I mean? Attacking the messenger again. If you want to correct the title then write a message to the newspaper.Total nonsense on your part,Seaoat.

Nekochan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Then attack the headline, not Dreams.  

Any knowledgeable person would not use that thread title in light of the judge's ruling......it was on the face incorrect.  Again, a simple thank you Seaoat for correcting the nonsense title to the thread would have sufficed.........as to a blow to the prosecution by not allowing their experts to testify.......that remains to be seen.......if there science was awful, and the defense had good rebuttal experts......it could have been a Waterloo for the Prosecutors......as I have said from the beginning......the tape means very little on what the state will try to prove, and we will have to see how the audio will meld with other prosecutor witnesses........As I have said repeatedly.....if folks think the tape is critical......then the defense will get a directed verdict at close of the state case.......this will not happen.

That is your opinion.  I have posted headlines that I disagreed with or that were misleading or just plain wrong.  Sometimes you find out who's actually reading your links when people make comments about your thread title. 
You didn't read Dream's link...you just attacked her for the headline.  Yes, the headline is not really accurate.   But Dreams didn't make it up, like you attacked her for in your first post on this thread.

Yeah! Thank you,madam! At least someone has some common sense here.