Martin ducks behind a house or something and doubles back to lose Zimmerman. He thinks he's lost him, comes around a corner and BAM there is Zimmerman on his way back to his car.
Zimmerman sees it as shady kid jumping out of the bushes or whatever at him.
Martin sees it as "oh shit" shady guy following me has found me again. Fight or flight? Fight.
Struggle ensues.
Someone who has read all of the reports and what not tell me if that works or not. I just find it weird that people seem to assume everything about Zimmerman's story has to be false. Even if you assume he did the whole thing in cold blood, telling mostly the facts with a little tweak here or there is an infinitely better cover than making up something outlandish.
Martin ducks behind a house or something and doubles back to lose Zimmerman. He thinks he's lost him, comes around a corner and BAM there is Zimmerman on his way back to his car.
Zimmerman sees it as shady kid jumping out of the bushes or whatever at him.
Martin sees it as "oh shit" shady guy following me has found me again. Fight or flight? Fight.
Struggle ensues.
Someone who has read all of the reports and what not tell me if that works or not. I just find it weird that people seem to assume everything about Zimmerman's story has to be false. Even if you assume he did the whole thing in cold blood, telling mostly the facts with a little tweak here or there is an infinitely better cover than making up something outlandish.
This could be a thing based on what has been released to the public, actually.
I like it because it doesn't devolve into anyone being horrifically evil, which is more plausible.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
Oh, no. Testing the audio against Zimmerman's voice and finding a low probability of a match is completely different from not testing it against Martin at all.
Okay, let's assume that no voice recordings of Martin even exist, rendering the testing of his voice moot.
Even so, all a failure to identify Zimmerman's voice means is that Owen's software can't ID Zimmerman's voice. It is not proof that the voice is not Zimmerman's. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(And a quick correction to my earlier posts. I said that the match rate on Zimmerman's voice was 38%. That was wrong, it was actually 48%. Either way, still well below the 90% threshold.)
Also - there are several issues at hand RE Tom Owen (the analyst who came up with the 48% match number) himself.
The number he gave for a match in Zimmerman's case is 90%. The number given by the company that makes the voice analysis software he uses for a match is 85%, as shown in
Yet in a previous murder trial (CT v Davalloo) Owen testified that he could positively ID the defendant based on a 68% match. He wasn't challenged in that case, possibly because the defendant was representing herself. The defendant ended up getting convicted.
Further, from Owen's own website:
III - THE METHOD OF VOICE IDENTIFICATION
... The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.
... The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.
Which means Owen would need verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!"
Comparing the "Help!" cry heard on the 911 tape to a speech sample of Zimmerman's, in which Zimmerman doesn't not say the word "Help!", would therefore be useless in determining a match, according to Owen's method. According to the transcripts I've seen, at no point during Zimmerman's 911 call (where he first reports Martin and begins following Martin) does Zimmerman say the word "Help!"
Which raises the questions:
- Where did Owen get the verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!" that he (Owen) needs in order to probably conduct a voice-matching analysis?
- Are we sure the recordings of "Help!" that Owen used to compare to the 911 call verified to be from George Zimmerman?
- Did Owen even use a copy of Zimmerman saying "Help!" to compare to the 911 call, or did he use copies of Zimmerman saying other words - a practice which Owen himself denounces?
I can't tell if you guys are being serious or not. Is it really that difficult to imagine how you could lose someone and then get ambushed on the way back to your vehicle? I have no idea if that is what actually happened, but Jesus people, use some imagination.
We're not saying it's impossible, we're saying it's unlikely. A normal person would either call the police or just continue on home after evading the creepy guy following him. Zimmerman's story portrays Martin as Evil Batman who follows him back, lurking in the shadows until he can ambush his unsuspecting prey. Yes, this sounds ridiculous, because it is.
As much as I don't like secondhand accounts, from this article we have Martin's father explaining what the detective told him about Zimmerman's story:
"He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, ‘Why are your [sic] following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon ‘I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up.
"Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says ‘I don't have a problem.'
"Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him.
"At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.'"
I can get with this explanation as being more realistic than ninja vanish, ninja attack. However, it is equally likely that Martin, throughly spooked by a bald goateed guy following him both in his truck and on foot, in the rain, tried to get out of sight and then proceed home. He either never managed to break LOS and Zimmerman confronted him, or thought he had, only for Zimmerman to catch up. Confrontation ensues.
DISCLAIMER: Personal opinion follows.
Now, see that last line, though? That is Goddamn insulting. It's the kind of thing somebody who watches too many Bugs Bunny cartoons thinks would be a plausible line to tell the police, because of course all the kids would talk like that playing cowboys and Indians. I'm not at all surprised that the detective said:
Sanford police released Zimmerman without charge, but Martin says Serino told him he would challenge Zimmerman's account. "The detective's words were, 'I want to interview him again to catch him in a lie,'" Martin said.
A law-enforcement source, who had been informed of the case by investigators, told Reuters that Serino was eager to bring a charge but encountered resistance from the office of the prosecutor, State Attorney Norman Wolfinger.
"Chris (Serino) would have made a recommendation for manslaughter, but Norm Wolfinger's office wanted it to be a slam dunk," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They don't want to hear that this is wrong or that is wrong with the case. That's the way this county does business." Wolfinger on Monday broke a long silence about the case, denying reports he quashed police intentions to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.
Martin ducks behind a house or something and doubles back to lose Zimmerman. He thinks he's lost him, comes around a corner and BAM there is Zimmerman on his way back to his car.
Zimmerman sees it as shady kid jumping out of the bushes or whatever at him.
Martin sees it as "oh shit" shady guy following me has found me again. Fight or flight? Fight.
Struggle ensues.
Someone who has read all of the reports and what not tell me if that works or not. I just find it weird that people seem to assume everything about Zimmerman's story has to be false. Even if you assume he did the whole thing in cold blood, telling mostly the facts with a little tweak here or there is an infinitely better cover than making up something outlandish.
This could be a thing based on what has been released to the public, actually.
I like it because it doesn't devolve into anyone being horrifically evil, which is more plausible.
Problem is, someone's dead so we want somebody punished which means we need someone to be the bad guy.
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
I think TNC's argument is pretty weak but that's not really a counter.
I'm kinda curious how the conservatives ended up flocking to Zimmerman, I mean isn't law and order supposed to be something of a priority?
Look at this thread. The gun rights crowd realizes that this case could turn public opinion against their heretofore unopposed march through the nation's laws, so they're trying their best to turn this into a "good shoot."
Also, Obama came out in favor of the justice system doing their jobs, and the kid who was killed was black. Don't forget that the media mis-reported Zimmerman and still is on some channels as a white male with no ethnic heritage whatsoever.
For the purposes of being a bigot or sociopathic jackass, the whole "white male exercises his right to defend his property and homeland through the use of guns!" thing is like a rallying cry for conservatives the nation over. You've got the holy trifecta of gun rights-classism-skin color. If the media could work religion into it too I guarantee you there'd be protests in the streets of Sanford in favor of Zimmerman.
Martin ducks behind a house or something and doubles back to lose Zimmerman. He thinks he's lost him, comes around a corner and BAM there is Zimmerman on his way back to his car.
Zimmerman sees it as shady kid jumping out of the bushes or whatever at him.
Martin sees it as "oh shit" shady guy following me has found me again. Fight or flight? Fight.
Struggle ensues.
Someone who has read all of the reports and what not tell me if that works or not. I just find it weird that people seem to assume everything about Zimmerman's story has to be false. Even if you assume he did the whole thing in cold blood, telling mostly the facts with a little tweak here or there is an infinitely better cover than making up something outlandish.
I guess if you're willing to give one or both of them a Family-Circus path, sure. In which case manslaughter sounds like a better charge, because one of these guys was still stalking the other.
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
You are making a huge assumption that Zimmerman is smart enough to be that devious.
In my head, I imagine that Zimmerman didn't intend to kill the kid, but he did, and likely for no real good reason. For that he deserves to be punished. I don't want to see him strapped to the chair or a needle in his arm (and for more reasons than the fact that I don't support capital punishment), but he plugged an unarmed kid in the chest. To me, if you shoot an unarmed person, there should be land slide-esque overwhelming proof that you life was truly in danger from those Skittles and Arizona. The burden of proof should be on the shooter, not the shot. We should assume deadly force was the wrong choice until it's proven that it is.
I think the real issues gets in to these stupid "stand your ground" laws. How someone can even think a law like that is a good plan, I'm not sure. You're asking gun toting citizens to make split second decisions when they are likely in fight or flight mode.
As a side note, I am not anti-gun. I have an arsenal in my house. I collect military rifles and hand guns, both for sport shooting and just to collect. I support the second amendment...but common sense has to play in to it at some point, and not just the crazy partisan extremes everyone wants to go to.
Martin ducks behind a house or something and doubles back to lose Zimmerman. He thinks he's lost him, comes around a corner and BAM there is Zimmerman on his way back to his car.
Zimmerman sees it as shady kid jumping out of the bushes or whatever at him.
Martin sees it as "oh shit" shady guy following me has found me again. Fight or flight? Fight.
Struggle ensues.
Someone who has read all of the reports and what not tell me if that works or not. I just find it weird that people seem to assume everything about Zimmerman's story has to be false. Even if you assume he did the whole thing in cold blood, telling mostly the facts with a little tweak here or there is an infinitely better cover than making up something outlandish.
This could be a thing based on what has been released to the public, actually.
I like it because it doesn't devolve into anyone being horrifically evil, which is more plausible.
Problem is, someone's dead so we want somebody punished which means we need someone to be the bad guy.
And I couldn't give less of a shit about the public's desire for blood. There's a reason our judical system isn't full of elected retards (oh wait, in Florida we do vote on whether or not judges are kept on...)
As my avatar would show, my only loyalty is to justice.
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
Martin ducks behind a house or something and doubles back to lose Zimmerman. He thinks he's lost him, comes around a corner and BAM there is Zimmerman on his way back to his car.
Zimmerman sees it as shady kid jumping out of the bushes or whatever at him.
Martin sees it as "oh shit" shady guy following me has found me again. Fight or flight? Fight.
Struggle ensues.
Someone who has read all of the reports and what not tell me if that works or not. I just find it weird that people seem to assume everything about Zimmerman's story has to be false. Even if you assume he did the whole thing in cold blood, telling mostly the facts with a little tweak here or there is an infinitely better cover than making up something outlandish.
I guess if you're willing to give one or both of them a Family-Circus path, sure. In which case manslaughter sounds like a better charge, because one of these guys was still stalking the other.
Also, there's the whole issue of Zimmerman's account having a few lies to it. Like how he claimed he was the one screaming when it's highly unlikely it was him. That's going to come back to bite him in the ass during the court case, most likely.
Either way, I wouldn't trust Zimmerman's account. He was the aggressor, the instigator, and he put himself in a situation where he could have been harmed, all while spouting off comments that were not indicative of someone not trying to be a gung-ho cowboy.
Edit: I can't believe someone just seriously tried to use a Batman avatar as an appeal to justice. And in a hammy way, too.
Or Zimmerman might be coloring the truth so he doesn't seem like the instigator. Then again, its his word against a corpse's, so who's going to contradict him?
From the affidavit it looks like they are going to use the girlfriend's testimony to refute that Zimmerman stopped his pursuit, and headed back to his car.
That Zimmerman may have lied when he said he stopped following, and headed back to his car seems perfectly reasonable. Even if that was the only lie he said if it can be proven to not be true his entire testimony will be brought into question.
Using Martin's girlfriends testimony is not without it's own problems. She wasn't there, so it is basically saying what she heard Martin tell her was happening on the phone. She has just as much reason to not tell the hole truth as Zimmerman does. Her testimony is also not held up to the same amount of scrutiny as Zimmerman's. It's unlikely any evidence could come out that proved she was embellishing her story, unlike Zimmerman's story which must match up with evidence and other witness accounts.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
Oh, no. Testing the audio against Zimmerman's voice and finding a low probability of a match is completely different from not testing it against Martin at all.
Okay, let's assume that no voice recordings of Martin even exist, rendering the testing of his voice moot.
Even so, all a failure to identify Zimmerman's voice means is that Owen's software can't ID Zimmerman's voice. It is not proof that the voice is not Zimmerman's. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(And a quick correction to my earlier posts. I said that the match rate on Zimmerman's voice was 38%. That was wrong, it was actually 48%. Either way, still well below the 90% threshold.)
Also - there are several issues at hand RE Tom Owen (the analyst who came up with the 48% match number) himself.
The number he gave for a match in Zimmerman's case is 90%. The number given by the company that makes the voice analysis software he uses for a match is 85%, as shown in
Yet in a previous murder trial (CT v Davalloo) Owen testified that he could positively ID the defendant based on a 68% match. He wasn't challenged in that case, possibly because the defendant was representing herself. The defendant ended up getting convicted.
Further, from Owen's own website:
III - THE METHOD OF VOICE IDENTIFICATION
... The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.
... The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.
Which means Owen would need verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!"
Comparing the "Help!" cry heard on the 911 tape to a speech sample of Zimmerman's, in which Zimmerman doesn't not say the word "Help!", would therefore be useless in determining a match, according to Owen's method. According to the transcripts I've seen, at no point during Zimmerman's 911 call (where he first reports Martin and begins following Martin) does Zimmerman say the word "Help!"
Which raises the questions:
- Where did Owen get the verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!" that he (Owen) needs in order to probably conduct a voice-matching analysis?
- Are we sure the recordings of "Help!" that Owen used to compare to the 911 call verified to be from George Zimmerman?
- Did Owen even use a copy of Zimmerman saying "Help!" to compare to the 911 call, or did he use copies of Zimmerman saying other words - a practice which Owen himself denounces?
Getting recordings of Zimmerman should be a snap if he was the one yelling. All Owen would need to do is ask. Who wouldn't want to help exonerate himself?
The point of using the low match % is to differentiate between the following three scenarios, which should roughly go along the lines of:
Zimmerman yelling: High % match to Zimmerman, low % match to Martin.
Martin yelling: Low % match to Zimmerman, high % match to Martin.
Someone else yelling: Low % match to Zimmerman, low % match to Martin.
So based on the evidence, assuming this is around the best analysis we have: It wasn't Zimmerman. Accordingly, the probability that it was Martin increases - not to 100% because we're no longer able to distinguish between the 2nd and 3rd options, but by removing the 1st its probability is then split between the others. If we say the prior probability of each is 40-40-20 or something like that, it would now be 0-66-34. (Numbers are obviously not perfect.) Therefore, viable but non-clinching evidence for "Martin was screaming".
I think TNC's argument is pretty weak but that's not really a counter.
I'm kinda curious how the conservatives ended up flocking to Zimmerman, I mean isn't law and order supposed to be something of a priority?
Look at this thread. The gun rights crowd realizes that this case could turn public opinion against their heretofore unopposed march through the nation's laws, so they're trying their best to turn this into a "good shoot."
I can't speak for the thread because I don't know which posters are are pro- and anti-gun, but in terms of the general public the sense I get from the pro-gun crowd isn't that they're trying to make this a "good shoot".
The sense I get is they're trying to protect SYG, and don't really care what happens to Zimmerman. That's why you see so many on the right saying "SYG doesn't apply to this case" and "SYG doesn't protect Zimmerman because he was following Martin". Including the original authors of the Florida SYG law.
Zimmerman can only bring down SYG if it applies to him. Otherwise the pro-gun crowd's argument will be that they're 2 separate issues. And if SYG indeed doesn't protect Zimmerman, they'd be right. They would say "Zimmerman was convicted with SYG in effect, justice was served with SYG in effect, so what's the problem?"
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
Oh, no. Testing the audio against Zimmerman's voice and finding a low probability of a match is completely different from not testing it against Martin at all.
Okay, let's assume that no voice recordings of Martin even exist, rendering the testing of his voice moot.
Even so, all a failure to identify Zimmerman's voice means is that Owen's software can't ID Zimmerman's voice. It is not proof that the voice is not Zimmerman's. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(And a quick correction to my earlier posts. I said that the match rate on Zimmerman's voice was 38%. That was wrong, it was actually 48%. Either way, still well below the 90% threshold.)
Also - there are several issues at hand RE Tom Owen (the analyst who came up with the 48% match number) himself.
The number he gave for a match in Zimmerman's case is 90%. The number given by the company that makes the voice analysis software he uses for a match is 85%, as shown in
Yet in a previous murder trial (CT v Davalloo) Owen testified that he could positively ID the defendant based on a 68% match. He wasn't challenged in that case, possibly because the defendant was representing herself. The defendant ended up getting convicted.
Further, from Owen's own website:
III - THE METHOD OF VOICE IDENTIFICATION
... The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.
... The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.
Which means Owen would need verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!"
Comparing the "Help!" cry heard on the 911 tape to a speech sample of Zimmerman's, in which Zimmerman doesn't not say the word "Help!", would therefore be useless in determining a match, according to Owen's method. According to the transcripts I've seen, at no point during Zimmerman's 911 call (where he first reports Martin and begins following Martin) does Zimmerman say the word "Help!"
Which raises the questions:
- Where did Owen get the verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!" that he (Owen) needs in order to probably conduct a voice-matching analysis?
- Are we sure the recordings of "Help!" that Owen used to compare to the 911 call verified to be from George Zimmerman?
- Did Owen even use a copy of Zimmerman saying "Help!" to compare to the 911 call, or did he use copies of Zimmerman saying other words - a practice which Owen himself denounces?
I heard the tester himself say that you do not need the person to say the same words, or to even say it in the same state of mind to get valid results. Do with that info what you will.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
Oh, no. Testing the audio against Zimmerman's voice and finding a low probability of a match is completely different from not testing it against Martin at all.
Okay, let's assume that no voice recordings of Martin even exist, rendering the testing of his voice moot.
Even so, all a failure to identify Zimmerman's voice means is that Owen's software can't ID Zimmerman's voice. It is not proof that the voice is not Zimmerman's. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(And a quick correction to my earlier posts. I said that the match rate on Zimmerman's voice was 38%. That was wrong, it was actually 48%. Either way, still well below the 90% threshold.)
Also - there are several issues at hand RE Tom Owen (the analyst who came up with the 48% match number) himself.
The number he gave for a match in Zimmerman's case is 90%. The number given by the company that makes the voice analysis software he uses for a match is 85%, as shown in
Yet in a previous murder trial (CT v Davalloo) Owen testified that he could positively ID the defendant based on a 68% match. He wasn't challenged in that case, possibly because the defendant was representing herself. The defendant ended up getting convicted.
Further, from Owen's own website:
III - THE METHOD OF VOICE IDENTIFICATION
... The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.
... The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.
Which means Owen would need verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!"
Comparing the "Help!" cry heard on the 911 tape to a speech sample of Zimmerman's, in which Zimmerman doesn't not say the word "Help!", would therefore be useless in determining a match, according to Owen's method. According to the transcripts I've seen, at no point during Zimmerman's 911 call (where he first reports Martin and begins following Martin) does Zimmerman say the word "Help!"
Which raises the questions:
- Where did Owen get the verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!" that he (Owen) needs in order to probably conduct a voice-matching analysis?
- Are we sure the recordings of "Help!" that Owen used to compare to the 911 call verified to be from George Zimmerman?
- Did Owen even use a copy of Zimmerman saying "Help!" to compare to the 911 call, or did he use copies of Zimmerman saying other words - a practice which Owen himself denounces?
Getting recordings of Zimmerman should be a snap if he was the one yelling. All Owen would need to do is ask. Who wouldn't want to help exonerate himself?
Did Owen ask? He's not law enforcement, and has no subpoena power to compel Zimmerman to provide him with anything.
If Owen didn't ask, or even if he asked and Zimmerman refused, the result is the same: Owen lacking the necessary resources to conduct an analysis that meets Owen's own standards.
The point of using the low match % is to differentiate between the following three scenarios, which should roughly go along the lines of:
Zimmerman yelling: High % match to Zimmerman, low % match to Martin.
Martin yelling: Low % match to Zimmerman, high % match to Martin.
Someone else yelling: Low % match to Zimmerman, low % match to Martin.
Except that Owen says that the exact same words are needed from Zimmerman as are heard on the 911 tape in question. Zimmerman yelling "Cheeseburger!" would also result in a low % match to the 911 tape yell of "Help!"
It's like comparing fingerprints. If I have a thumbprint and I want to find out if it belongs to you, I need a copy of your thumbprint. It needs to be your thumbprint. It can't be your ring finger or your pinky or your big toe. I can't compare a thumbprint to your pinky-print, get a low % match, and then declare "The thumbprint isn't yours because it didn't match your pinky-print." You have to compare like to like.
So based on the evidence, assuming this is around the best analysis we have: It wasn't Zimmerman.
Based on Owen's own standards of voice-matching analysis, unless Owen has a verified copy of Zimmerman yelling "Help!" to compare with the 911 tape, any result he gets from any matching a copy of Zimmerman's other speech to the 911 "Help!" is essentially useless.
Presumably Martin knew very well where to hide to ambush Zimmerman.
Presumably not, since, you know, Martin didn't live in the community where it happened.
I'm sure he's been there a few times if a parent lives there.
/Sarcasm
Yes, because when I go to a new place, the first thing I do is look for spots where I can ambush the unwary.
/Sarcasm off.
The entire claim is pure conjecture. We don't know if Martin knew where to ambush Zimmerman and we don't know IF Martin ambushed Zimmerman.
Because there's no possible way Martin could know his way around the neighborhood before hand, right? My problem isn't that this dude is innocent, my problem is people like you who jump to conclusions like a rabid dog who has got their sights set on some poor dude's uncovered nuts without thinking about the whole picture.
That's not how justice works. Again you won't see me trying to defend his ass like he's innocent (unlike what phillishire seems to think is going on because he's so blinded by his own zeal) but, just like the racism bullshit, just maybe there's some plausibility to certain situations here. And that maybe, just maybe, the poor, young black child might not be innocent just because he's a kid, or black and this guy's white, which somehow keeps cropping up as a reason.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
Out of random curiosity, why does pro-gun have to mean pro-SYG? I am pro-gun, I like my guns, thank you very much...but I am not pro-SYG, I think it's a terrible law based on a terrible premise.
Its still put a lot of attention on SYG in the media.
Directly related or not its a topic now
True.
But if Zimmerman gets convicted, then backers of SYG will point to the conviction and say "See? SYG is demonstrably not a license to kill."
Oh, and naturally we'll all be completely unsurprised when the NRA follows that up with "If Trayvon Martin had a gun, maybe he could have used it to defend himself against the murderer George Zimmerman. A gun would have allowed Trayvon to stand his ground."
Don't forget how upset Zimmerman sounds in the transcript that some black kid is roaming around the neighborhood. He starts dropping the words "fucking coons" at one point.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Don't forget how upset Zimmerman sounds in the transcript that some black kid is roaming around the neighborhood. He starts dropping the words "fucking coons" at one point.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Right. That's why one of his friends said that Zimmerman actually said "fucking goons".
I mean "fucking punks". Wait, no. "Fucking cold"...
I heard the tester himself say that you do not need the person to say the same words, or to even say it in the same state of mind to get valid results. Do with that info what you will.
I was under the impression that to effectively compare to the yelling for help in the background of the 911 call you would at least need a sample of someone yelling to compare it too. That this sample could be obtained from Zimmerman, but is unlikely to exist for Martin is why I thought only Zimmerman's voice was tested.
If this is not the case then the tester should have tested Martin's voice as well, and released the findings together. Assuming that Martin has his voice recorded somewhere.
Out of random curiosity, why does pro-gun have to mean pro-SYG? I am pro-gun, I like my guns, thank you very much...but I am not pro-SYG, I think it's a terrible law based on a terrible premise.
Indeed. You can also be pro-SYG, and anti-gun...it's just uncommon. For instance, you can easily support the ability to meet force with unarmed force in public places.
I get the feeling the two are linked because the kind of people who would demand that SYG be spelled out in statute (rather than supported by case law, as was already likely the case) are also the type that are so obsessed with self defense as part of their everyday life that they'd go through the trouble to carry...because they see a confrontation as remotely likely, and want to make sure they win.
I heard the tester himself say that you do not need the person to say the same words, or to even say it in the same state of mind to get valid results. Do with that info what you will.
I was under the impression that to effectively compare to the yelling for help in the background of the 911 call you would at least need a sample of someone yelling to compare it too. That this sample could be obtained from Zimmerman, but is unlikely to exist for Martin is why I thought only Zimmerman's voice was tested.
If this is not the case then the tester should have tested Martin's voice as well, and released the findings together. Assuming that Martin has his voice recorded somewhere.
What I am guessing they do is first smooth out the bitrate on the recording depending on how low the recorded bitrate is. They would, at least in my view, need to have the two sources to be of comparable bitrates or be "processed" into comparable. Then they do amplification comparisons on the files. This process would be similair to what would be done with enhancing camera pictures... The interesting thing is when the camera enhancements came out there was an outcry on the photo showing signs of dmg to Zimmermans head but doing "estimate" work on voice recordings is just fine.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
Oh, no. Testing the audio against Zimmerman's voice and finding a low probability of a match is completely different from not testing it against Martin at all.
Okay, let's assume that no voice recordings of Martin even exist, rendering the testing of his voice moot.
Even so, all a failure to identify Zimmerman's voice means is that Owen's software can't ID Zimmerman's voice. It is not proof that the voice is not Zimmerman's. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(And a quick correction to my earlier posts. I said that the match rate on Zimmerman's voice was 38%. That was wrong, it was actually 48%. Either way, still well below the 90% threshold.)
Also - there are several issues at hand RE Tom Owen (the analyst who came up with the 48% match number) himself.
The number he gave for a match in Zimmerman's case is 90%. The number given by the company that makes the voice analysis software he uses for a match is 85%, as shown in
Yet in a previous murder trial (CT v Davalloo) Owen testified that he could positively ID the defendant based on a 68% match. He wasn't challenged in that case, possibly because the defendant was representing herself. The defendant ended up getting convicted.
Further, from Owen's own website:
III - THE METHOD OF VOICE IDENTIFICATION
... The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.
... The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.
Which means Owen would need verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!"
Comparing the "Help!" cry heard on the 911 tape to a speech sample of Zimmerman's, in which Zimmerman doesn't not say the word "Help!", would therefore be useless in determining a match, according to Owen's method. According to the transcripts I've seen, at no point during Zimmerman's 911 call (where he first reports Martin and begins following Martin) does Zimmerman say the word "Help!"
Which raises the questions:
- Where did Owen get the verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!" that he (Owen) needs in order to probably conduct a voice-matching analysis?
- Are we sure the recordings of "Help!" that Owen used to compare to the 911 call verified to be from George Zimmerman?
- Did Owen even use a copy of Zimmerman saying "Help!" to compare to the 911 call, or did he use copies of Zimmerman saying other words - a practice which Owen himself denounces?
I heard the tester himself say that you do not need the person to say the same words, or to even say it in the same state of mind to get valid results. Do with that info what you will.
What I would do is not put Owen anywhere near the witness stand if he's this self-refuting. I mean, his website literally says the worst type of recording to use is random conversation, and then he proceeded to use random conversation in his Zimmerman analysis. His website says to use the same words/phrases in both recordings being compared, and then he didn't do that when making his Zimmerman analysis.
Owen's own website says to use the same words/phrases when comparing two recordings. So does Steve Cain, another voice identification expert:
Speech samples obtained should contain exactly the same words and phrases as those in the questioned sample because only like speech sounds are used for comparison. Be cause the voice, like handwriting, is dynamic and variant, several samples of each spoken phrase are desired for analysis.
... It is important that the known sample be spoken in the same manner as the questioned sample; therefore, the investigator should be familiar with the voice, manner of speech and the text.
Cain claims 25 years of experience in voice identification, including working for the US Dept of Justice, US Senate, US Attorney's Office, SEC, FBI, DEA, IRS, ATF, Secret Service, and Customs. http://tapeexpert.com/
So that's Owen's own website, as well as a different voice identification expert, both saying to use the same words/phrases in the verified recording as in the unknown recording.
That's not even getting into Cain's recommendation to have both sample be spoken in the same manner. Comparing Zimmerman talking to the 911 operator in a fairly calm voice is NOT the same manner as a voice screaming for help.
Incidentally, Tom Owen is also the guy who said that Zimmerman said "punks" instead of "coons" or "goons".
Forensic audio expert Tom Owen, who analyzed 911 recordings, agreed the garbled word that raised controversy was "punks," not the racial slur some people said they heard.
California has no explicit "stand your ground" law that I can show you. What California has is no duty to retreat laid out in their self-defense code, and (by my memory) no duty to retreat laid out in their jury instruction, and also (by my memory) case law actively supporting no duty to retreat.
Which is something I've tried to get at repeatedly in this thread, particularly as relates to the "immunity from prosecution" angle. Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't actually have nearly as dramatic of an effect as a lot of people think it does...it's like the "assault rifle" of self-defense law. Sounds super-scary, but really allows basically the same level of self-defense that was already present (just like "assault rifles" are largely just regular guns that are black instead of brown and maybe have pistol grips). Just like requiring probable cause for an arrest was already the law. And, I'd wager, Florida already had no duty to retreat on the books, and case law supporting it...this law just made it explicit in statute.
It may or may not have an emboldening effect on people towards violence when you do so, but it didn't necessarily change the likely legal outcome.
Anyway, I don't have the time nor legal expertise to prove this to you to a standard you'd accept at the moment. If you're truly interested, I'd wager you could use the googles to track the information down.
However, I'd suggest that you not dismiss the idea just because you don't think this is the case and I can't show it right now. Everybody here pretty much thought that self-defense was an affirmative defense, with the burden on the defense to prove it. And yet. Look into it for yourself. You might learn something interesting.
Well, California certainly has a castle doctrine, and when claiming self defense your actions have to be proportionate (so if someone punches you you can push them away, throw them to the ground but not shoot them, but if someone is choking you you can shoot them) and reasonable (which is determined by a totality of the circumstances) but I still havent found anything like the SYG law in Florida. Im not saying the cases dont exist, but Ive yet to see an incident where someone chased a dude down and then stabbed him to death and then didnt get charged because they were acting in self defense.
The reason I ask is some people have indicated that the SYG law isnt crazy because even states like California have it (which is a bullshit argument for a number of reasons, one of the larger ones being California isnt that liberal) which may not even be correct.
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.
Basically all I'm getting is that modern forensics science is awful.
What you should be getting is that 97% of CSI and Law and Order is bullshit.
"help" Enhance!
"Help!" Enhance!
"HELP!!!!" Enhance!
"HELP GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS MURDERING ME!"
"fucking pshhhhh" Enhance!
"fucking pooshn*" Enhance!
"fucking poons" Enhance!
"The concept of a post-racial world is a logical fallacy as the theoretical fear of the other is evolutionarily engrained into the human subconscious."
Posts
Martin ducks behind a house or something and doubles back to lose Zimmerman. He thinks he's lost him, comes around a corner and BAM there is Zimmerman on his way back to his car.
Zimmerman sees it as shady kid jumping out of the bushes or whatever at him.
Martin sees it as "oh shit" shady guy following me has found me again. Fight or flight? Fight.
Struggle ensues.
Someone who has read all of the reports and what not tell me if that works or not. I just find it weird that people seem to assume everything about Zimmerman's story has to be false. Even if you assume he did the whole thing in cold blood, telling mostly the facts with a little tweak here or there is an infinitely better cover than making up something outlandish.
This could be a thing based on what has been released to the public, actually.
I like it because it doesn't devolve into anyone being horrifically evil, which is more plausible.
Okay, let's assume that no voice recordings of Martin even exist, rendering the testing of his voice moot.
Even so, all a failure to identify Zimmerman's voice means is that Owen's software can't ID Zimmerman's voice. It is not proof that the voice is not Zimmerman's. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(And a quick correction to my earlier posts. I said that the match rate on Zimmerman's voice was 38%. That was wrong, it was actually 48%. Either way, still well below the 90% threshold.)
Also - there are several issues at hand RE Tom Owen (the analyst who came up with the 48% match number) himself.
The number he gave for a match in Zimmerman's case is 90%. The number given by the company that makes the voice analysis software he uses for a match is 85%, as shown in
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpgF9-gILPY
Yet in a previous murder trial (CT v Davalloo) Owen testified that he could positively ID the defendant based on a 68% match. He wasn't challenged in that case, possibly because the defendant was representing herself. The defendant ended up getting convicted.
Further, from Owen's own website:
http://www.owlinvestigations.com/article1.html
Which means Owen would need verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!"
Comparing the "Help!" cry heard on the 911 tape to a speech sample of Zimmerman's, in which Zimmerman doesn't not say the word "Help!", would therefore be useless in determining a match, according to Owen's method. According to the transcripts I've seen, at no point during Zimmerman's 911 call (where he first reports Martin and begins following Martin) does Zimmerman say the word "Help!"
Which raises the questions:
- Where did Owen get the verified recordings of Zimmerman saying "Help!" that he (Owen) needs in order to probably conduct a voice-matching analysis?
- Are we sure the recordings of "Help!" that Owen used to compare to the 911 call verified to be from George Zimmerman?
- Did Owen even use a copy of Zimmerman saying "Help!" to compare to the 911 call, or did he use copies of Zimmerman saying other words - a practice which Owen himself denounces?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
As much as I don't like secondhand accounts, from this article we have Martin's father explaining what the detective told him about Zimmerman's story:
I can get with this explanation as being more realistic than ninja vanish, ninja attack. However, it is equally likely that Martin, throughly spooked by a bald goateed guy following him both in his truck and on foot, in the rain, tried to get out of sight and then proceed home. He either never managed to break LOS and Zimmerman confronted him, or thought he had, only for Zimmerman to catch up. Confrontation ensues.
DISCLAIMER: Personal opinion follows.
Now, see that last line, though? That is Goddamn insulting. It's the kind of thing somebody who watches too many Bugs Bunny cartoons thinks would be a plausible line to tell the police, because of course all the kids would talk like that playing cowboys and Indians. I'm not at all surprised that the detective said:
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Problem is, someone's dead so we want somebody punished which means we need someone to be the bad guy.
Also, Obama came out in favor of the justice system doing their jobs, and the kid who was killed was black. Don't forget that the media mis-reported Zimmerman and still is on some channels as a white male with no ethnic heritage whatsoever.
For the purposes of being a bigot or sociopathic jackass, the whole "white male exercises his right to defend his property and homeland through the use of guns!" thing is like a rallying cry for conservatives the nation over. You've got the holy trifecta of gun rights-classism-skin color. If the media could work religion into it too I guarantee you there'd be protests in the streets of Sanford in favor of Zimmerman.
Oh wait. There already were.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/04/06/armed-neo-nazis-patrol-sanford.html
I guess if you're willing to give one or both of them a Family-Circus path, sure. In which case manslaughter sounds like a better charge, because one of these guys was still stalking the other.
In my head, I imagine that Zimmerman didn't intend to kill the kid, but he did, and likely for no real good reason. For that he deserves to be punished. I don't want to see him strapped to the chair or a needle in his arm (and for more reasons than the fact that I don't support capital punishment), but he plugged an unarmed kid in the chest. To me, if you shoot an unarmed person, there should be land slide-esque overwhelming proof that you life was truly in danger from those Skittles and Arizona. The burden of proof should be on the shooter, not the shot. We should assume deadly force was the wrong choice until it's proven that it is.
I think the real issues gets in to these stupid "stand your ground" laws. How someone can even think a law like that is a good plan, I'm not sure. You're asking gun toting citizens to make split second decisions when they are likely in fight or flight mode.
As a side note, I am not anti-gun. I have an arsenal in my house. I collect military rifles and hand guns, both for sport shooting and just to collect. I support the second amendment...but common sense has to play in to it at some point, and not just the crazy partisan extremes everyone wants to go to.
And I couldn't give less of a shit about the public's desire for blood. There's a reason our judical system isn't full of elected retards (oh wait, in Florida we do vote on whether or not judges are kept on...)
As my avatar would show, my only loyalty is to justice.
Also, there's the whole issue of Zimmerman's account having a few lies to it. Like how he claimed he was the one screaming when it's highly unlikely it was him. That's going to come back to bite him in the ass during the court case, most likely.
Either way, I wouldn't trust Zimmerman's account. He was the aggressor, the instigator, and he put himself in a situation where he could have been harmed, all while spouting off comments that were not indicative of someone not trying to be a gung-ho cowboy.
Edit: I can't believe someone just seriously tried to use a Batman avatar as an appeal to justice. And in a hammy way, too.
From the affidavit it looks like they are going to use the girlfriend's testimony to refute that Zimmerman stopped his pursuit, and headed back to his car.
That Zimmerman may have lied when he said he stopped following, and headed back to his car seems perfectly reasonable. Even if that was the only lie he said if it can be proven to not be true his entire testimony will be brought into question.
Using Martin's girlfriends testimony is not without it's own problems. She wasn't there, so it is basically saying what she heard Martin tell her was happening on the phone. She has just as much reason to not tell the hole truth as Zimmerman does. Her testimony is also not held up to the same amount of scrutiny as Zimmerman's. It's unlikely any evidence could come out that proved she was embellishing her story, unlike Zimmerman's story which must match up with evidence and other witness accounts.
Overall I think her story seems legitimate.
Getting recordings of Zimmerman should be a snap if he was the one yelling. All Owen would need to do is ask. Who wouldn't want to help exonerate himself?
The point of using the low match % is to differentiate between the following three scenarios, which should roughly go along the lines of:
Zimmerman yelling: High % match to Zimmerman, low % match to Martin.
Martin yelling: Low % match to Zimmerman, high % match to Martin.
Someone else yelling: Low % match to Zimmerman, low % match to Martin.
So based on the evidence, assuming this is around the best analysis we have: It wasn't Zimmerman. Accordingly, the probability that it was Martin increases - not to 100% because we're no longer able to distinguish between the 2nd and 3rd options, but by removing the 1st its probability is then split between the others. If we say the prior probability of each is 40-40-20 or something like that, it would now be 0-66-34. (Numbers are obviously not perfect.) Therefore, viable but non-clinching evidence for "Martin was screaming".
I can't speak for the thread because I don't know which posters are are pro- and anti-gun, but in terms of the general public the sense I get from the pro-gun crowd isn't that they're trying to make this a "good shoot".
The sense I get is they're trying to protect SYG, and don't really care what happens to Zimmerman. That's why you see so many on the right saying "SYG doesn't apply to this case" and "SYG doesn't protect Zimmerman because he was following Martin". Including the original authors of the Florida SYG law.
Zimmerman can only bring down SYG if it applies to him. Otherwise the pro-gun crowd's argument will be that they're 2 separate issues. And if SYG indeed doesn't protect Zimmerman, they'd be right. They would say "Zimmerman was convicted with SYG in effect, justice was served with SYG in effect, so what's the problem?"
Directly related or not its a topic now
Did Owen ask? He's not law enforcement, and has no subpoena power to compel Zimmerman to provide him with anything.
If Owen didn't ask, or even if he asked and Zimmerman refused, the result is the same: Owen lacking the necessary resources to conduct an analysis that meets Owen's own standards.
Except that Owen says that the exact same words are needed from Zimmerman as are heard on the 911 tape in question. Zimmerman yelling "Cheeseburger!" would also result in a low % match to the 911 tape yell of "Help!"
It's like comparing fingerprints. If I have a thumbprint and I want to find out if it belongs to you, I need a copy of your thumbprint. It needs to be your thumbprint. It can't be your ring finger or your pinky or your big toe. I can't compare a thumbprint to your pinky-print, get a low % match, and then declare "The thumbprint isn't yours because it didn't match your pinky-print." You have to compare like to like.
Based on Owen's own standards of voice-matching analysis, unless Owen has a verified copy of Zimmerman yelling "Help!" to compare with the 911 tape, any result he gets from any matching a copy of Zimmerman's other speech to the 911 "Help!" is essentially useless.
Because there's no possible way Martin could know his way around the neighborhood before hand, right? My problem isn't that this dude is innocent, my problem is people like you who jump to conclusions like a rabid dog who has got their sights set on some poor dude's uncovered nuts without thinking about the whole picture.
That's not how justice works. Again you won't see me trying to defend his ass like he's innocent (unlike what phillishire seems to think is going on because he's so blinded by his own zeal) but, just like the racism bullshit, just maybe there's some plausibility to certain situations here. And that maybe, just maybe, the poor, young black child might not be innocent just because he's a kid, or black and this guy's white, which somehow keeps cropping up as a reason.
I really wonder why bother with social media sometimes.
True.
But if Zimmerman gets convicted, then backers of SYG will point to the conviction and say "See? SYG is demonstrably not a license to kill."
Oh, and naturally we'll all be completely unsurprised when the NRA follows that up with "If Trayvon Martin had a gun, maybe he could have used it to defend himself against the murderer George Zimmerman. A gun would have allowed Trayvon to stand his ground."
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Right. That's why one of his friends said that Zimmerman actually said "fucking goons".
I mean "fucking punks". Wait, no. "Fucking cold"...
and I still have no idea what he's saying.
I was under the impression that to effectively compare to the yelling for help in the background of the 911 call you would at least need a sample of someone yelling to compare it too. That this sample could be obtained from Zimmerman, but is unlikely to exist for Martin is why I thought only Zimmerman's voice was tested.
If this is not the case then the tester should have tested Martin's voice as well, and released the findings together. Assuming that Martin has his voice recorded somewhere.
Indeed. You can also be pro-SYG, and anti-gun...it's just uncommon. For instance, you can easily support the ability to meet force with unarmed force in public places.
I get the feeling the two are linked because the kind of people who would demand that SYG be spelled out in statute (rather than supported by case law, as was already likely the case) are also the type that are so obsessed with self defense as part of their everyday life that they'd go through the trouble to carry...because they see a confrontation as remotely likely, and want to make sure they win.
I think "rorsach test" was a fair description earlier.
What I am guessing they do is first smooth out the bitrate on the recording depending on how low the recorded bitrate is. They would, at least in my view, need to have the two sources to be of comparable bitrates or be "processed" into comparable. Then they do amplification comparisons on the files. This process would be similair to what would be done with enhancing camera pictures... The interesting thing is when the camera enhancements came out there was an outcry on the photo showing signs of dmg to Zimmermans head but doing "estimate" work on voice recordings is just fine.
I listened it again just now. I heard "poons"
'
obviously that's not what he said and someone might point out that "poon" sounds a lot like "coon"
however, the "p" sound was fairly pronounced to me.
As I just said, really can't say with any semblance of confidence what word he actually uttered.
What I would do is not put Owen anywhere near the witness stand if he's this self-refuting. I mean, his website literally says the worst type of recording to use is random conversation, and then he proceeded to use random conversation in his Zimmerman analysis. His website says to use the same words/phrases in both recordings being compared, and then he didn't do that when making his Zimmerman analysis.
Owen's own website says to use the same words/phrases when comparing two recordings. So does Steve Cain, another voice identification expert:
http://expertpages.com/news/voiceprint_identification.htm
Cain claims 25 years of experience in voice identification, including working for the US Dept of Justice, US Senate, US Attorney's Office, SEC, FBI, DEA, IRS, ATF, Secret Service, and Customs.
http://tapeexpert.com/
Here's a link to Cain testifying before the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in US vs Drones (2000) 218 F.3d 496.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/218/496/633380/
So that's Owen's own website, as well as a different voice identification expert, both saying to use the same words/phrases in the verified recording as in the unknown recording.
That's not even getting into Cain's recommendation to have both sample be spoken in the same manner. Comparing Zimmerman talking to the 911 operator in a fairly calm voice is NOT the same manner as a voice screaming for help.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html
What you should be getting is that 97% of CSI and Law and Order is bullshit.
"help"
Enhance!
"Help!"
Enhance!
"HELP!!!!"
Enhance!
"HELP GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS MURDERING ME!"
Well, California certainly has a castle doctrine, and when claiming self defense your actions have to be proportionate (so if someone punches you you can push them away, throw them to the ground but not shoot them, but if someone is choking you you can shoot them) and reasonable (which is determined by a totality of the circumstances) but I still havent found anything like the SYG law in Florida. Im not saying the cases dont exist, but Ive yet to see an incident where someone chased a dude down and then stabbed him to death and then didnt get charged because they were acting in self defense.
The reason I ask is some people have indicated that the SYG law isnt crazy because even states like California have it (which is a bullshit argument for a number of reasons, one of the larger ones being California isnt that liberal) which may not even be correct.
"fucking pshhhhh"
Enhance!
"fucking pooshn*"
Enhance!
"fucking poons"
Enhance!
"The concept of a post-racial world is a logical fallacy as the theoretical fear of the other is evolutionarily engrained into the human subconscious."