17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[JeepGuy79]

In the police report Zimmerman said he was screaming for help. He had no way to know it was being recorded. The cries for help I think are his as it fits exactly with his statement.

[The Annoyed Man]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... -certainty

Experts say it was Martin screaming for help....Not Zimmerman....

"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.

Jusster

No. That's not what the numbers actually say. That jack wagon calls it a "reasonable scientific certainty" that it is not Zimmerman, but his own numbers say that it is that it 48% a match to Zimmerman. That's close enough (±2%) to 50/50 for me, which isn't even remotely close to "reasonable scientific certainty" either way. And since he has no recording of Martin against which to test the screaming, he can't say that it is Martin...........but we know there is a nearly 50% match to Zimmerman. Please! (TAM dispenses with another liberal scientist twisting facts to mean what he wants them to mean.) Where did you say you got your education in statistics?

That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Based on the article, the Orlando Sentinel sought this guy out for his expert opinion. Maybe it’s like fingerprints or DNA…people may share similar markers but for it to be a positive match 48% falls way short. But I don’t know, you sound like you know a lot more about this technology then I do so maybe you are right.

Edit: I decided to look the guy up….he looks pretty credible to me.

http://www.owlinvestigations.com/about.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jusster

I'm not an expert in voice recognition technology, but I've had a university education in the sciences, and voice recognition is not as accurate as say DNA testing. I know that a 48% match for one person, with no sample for the other person A) does not disqualify the person who was a 52% match (it merely reduces the certainty); and B) 50% trumps 0%, and we have no sample for Martin. Try to think of it this way.....

It is not a case of 48% Zimmerman versus 52% NOT Zimmerman. It's more like a case of 48% Zimmerman versus 52% don't know one way or the other. In other words, that 52% doesn't point toward Martin....and that is a far cry from being able to say with certainty that it is not Zimmerman. See what I mean? In that light, this "expert" testimony has about as much value as a psychic. It's not something that any prosecutor would want to use in a courtroom because it is just too easy to refute.

Now, if we had a sample of Martin's voice to compare the 911 voice recording against, this expert might be able to make a better case. But he doesn't. And the reason I make the claim that he is biased is because he issued a finding against Zimmerman based on inconclusive evidence. In other words, he had a 48% Zimmerman match versus a 52% "I don't know" match, and he announced that it isn't Zimmerman. That makes him either VERY biased, or a nincompoop.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I am somewhat of an expert on experts, so to speak. I use to have to deal with expert witness advertising in a legal journal all the time. Every one of them is pretty sure that he/she is God's gift to the courtroom.

[The Annoyed Man]

In the police report Zimmerman said he was screaming for help. He had no way to know it was being recorded. The cries for help I think are his as it fits exactly with his statement.

Not to mention the reliable and independent eyewitness testimony of the person who watched the assault and places Zimmerman on the bottom with Martin on top of him. That's an inconvenient fact for the "Martin an innocent victim" side of the debate.

[JeepGuy79]

Their has to have been a Frye hearing on voice recognition. Anyone know if there is a standard set for acceptable % of correctness for expert testimony to come in?

[stroo]

The eyewitness testimony probably trumps any voice testing anyway. So not sure that voice testing on the 911 calls would even be considered relevant or come into evidence in a trial.

[Jusster]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... -certainty

Experts say it was Martin screaming for help....Not Zimmerman....

"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.

Jusster

No. That's not what the numbers actually say. That jack wagon calls it a "reasonable scientific certainty" that it is not Zimmerman, but his own numbers say that it is that it 48% a match to Zimmerman. That's close enough (±2%) to 50/50 for me, which isn't even remotely close to "reasonable scientific certainty" either way. And since he has no recording of Martin against which to test the screaming, he can't say that it is Martin...........but we know there is a nearly 50% match to Zimmerman. Please! (TAM dispenses with another liberal scientist twisting facts to mean what he wants them to mean.) Where did you say you got your education in statistics?

That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Based on the article, the Orlando Sentinel sought this guy out for his expert opinion. Maybe it’s like fingerprints or DNA…people may share similar markers but for it to be a positive match 48% falls way short. But I don’t know, you sound like you know a lot more about this technology then I do so maybe you are right.

Edit: I decided to look the guy up….he looks pretty credible to me.

http://www.owlinvestigations.com/about.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jusster

I'm not an expert in voice recognition technology, but I've had a university education in the sciences, and voice recognition is not as accurate as say DNA testing. I know that a 48% match for one person, with no sample for the other person A) does not disqualify the person who was a 52% match (it merely reduces the certainty); and B) 50% trumps 0%, and we have no sample for Martin. Try to think of it this way.....

It is not a case of 48% Zimmerman versus 52% NOT Zimmerman. It's more like a case of 48% Zimmerman versus 52% don't know one way or the other. In other words, that 52% doesn't point toward Martin....and that is a far cry from being able to say with certainty that it is not Zimmerman. See what I mean? In that light, this "expert" testimony has about as much value as a psychic. It's not something that any prosecutor would want to use in a courtroom because it is just too easy to refute.

Now, if we had a sample of Martin's voice to compare the 911 voice recording against, this expert might be able to make a better case. But he doesn't. And the reason I make the claim that he is biased is because he issued a finding against Zimmerman based on inconclusive evidence. In other words, he had a 48% Zimmerman match versus a 52% "I don't know" match, and he announced that it isn't Zimmerman. That makes him either VERY biased, or a nincompoop.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I am somewhat of an expert on experts, so to speak. I use to have to deal with expert witness advertising in a legal journal all the time. Every one of them is pretty sure that he/she is God's gift to the courtroom.

I do see where you are coming from TAM. The guy said for it to be considered to be Zimmerman’s voice, he would expect to see the results to be +90%. So what I see him saying is that it can pretty much be ruled out that it is Zimmerman. The reason I brought up DNA is this. My brother had to take a DNA test because his Ex girlfriend claimed he was the father of her child. The results said there was something like a 25% chance he was the father. Now on the other hand, the guy who was the father it was 99.9999 blah blah blah….he was the father. So maybe his voice has some similar characteristics such as maybe the similarities between male voices, but lacking the characteristics that would confirm it to be him. Just my guess, and who knows, probably tomorrow or next week there will be someone else to dispute his claim. I was simply providing new information that I have yet to see introduced on this forum.


Jusster

[Jusster]

In the police report Zimmerman said he was screaming for help. He had no way to know it was being recorded. The cries for help I think are his as it fits exactly with his statement.

Or...Zimmerman knew Martin was screaming for help and he wanted to make it appear that it was him to validate his self defense claim.....so he told LEO he was screaming for help instead of Martin.


Jusster

[Jusster]

The eyewitness testimony probably trumps any voice testing anyway. So not sure that voice testing on the 911 calls would even be considered relevant or come into evidence in a trial.

I think this case will come down to forensic evidence. Eyewitnesses will play a very small role.


Jusster

[stroo]

No offense but all you really have is the eyewitnesses. The testing you are raising is inconclusive, does not prove anything. The eyewitnesses agree that GZ was on the bottom calling for help. This is not really a fact in dispute.

[JeepGuy79]

In the police report Zimmerman said he was screaming for help. He had no way to know it was being recorded. The cries for help I think are his as it fits exactly with his statement.

Or...Zimmerman knew Martin was screaming for help and he wanted to make it appear that it was him to validate his self defense claim.....so he told LEO he was screaming for help instead of Martin.


Jusster

He wasn't even being questioned when he said it. It was a spontaneous utterance. Who would come up with that so fast? I wouldn't.

I am pretty sure that zimmerman was getting the insides kicked out of him when he fired, but I want to know why zimmerman was so close to Martin after 911 told him to stop pursuit and he said "ok"

[sjfcontrol]

In the police report Zimmerman said he was screaming for help. He had no way to know it was being recorded. The cries for help I think are his as it fits exactly with his statement.

Or...Zimmerman knew Martin was screaming for help and he wanted to make it appear that it was him to validate his self defense claim.....so he told LEO he was screaming for help instead of Martin.


Jusster

He wasn't even being questioned when he said it. It was a spontaneous utterance. Who would come up with that so fast? I wouldn't.

I am pretty sure that zimmerman was getting the insides kicked out of him when he fired, but I want to know why zimmerman was so close to Martin after 911 told him to stop pursuit and he said "ok"

Because Martin circled around and came up behind him. Martin approached Zimmerman to attack him.

[The Annoyed Man]

The eyewitness testimony probably trumps any voice testing anyway. So not sure that voice testing on the 911 calls would even be considered relevant or come into evidence in a trial.

I think this case will come down to forensic evidence. Eyewitnesses will play a very small role.


Jusster

That's possible, but even the forensic evidence tends to be in Zimmerman's favor. All the same, a direct eye witness would be very hard to refute. You would have to attack the witness's reliability. By that, I don't necessarily mean his character, although it could be that too. You'd have to prove that from his claimed vantage point, he couldn't possibly have seen what was going on.....or prove that he wasn't wearing his glasses, or if he was wearing them, that the prescription was out of date (My Cousin Vinny), or that his windows were too dirty to see out of....whatever. But unless you can unseat the witness's reliability, I think his testimony will play a bigger part than you think it will. The defense doesn't have to prove innocence. Because of the court's presumption of innocence, the job of the defense is to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. A direct eyewitness who is reliable woud go a long way toward that goal, it would seem to me, and at least from what we've seen in the press, it seems as if most of the evidence released to the public by both the police and Zimmerman's representatives (the only valid sources) tend to support Zimmerman's version of the story.

Even the mortician who handled Martin's body offers an opinion in favor of Martin, which is based on evidence that could just as easily support Zimmerman as it could Martin. He said there were no other marks on Martin's body. Well, that would tend to support the idea that it was Zimmerman who was getting the snot knocked out of him. The mortician said that Martin had been shot in the chest. Well so what? It's not hard to imagine that a struggle over the gun (which is what Zimmerman claims was happening when he shot Martin) could still result in a chest wound just as easily as a stomach or groin wound. If there is any powder stippling, that would prove that the shot was fired at contact distance, which would still be supported by a scenario in which Martin is on top of Zimmerman, who is on his back, and there is a struggle over the gun which Martin is trying to take away from Zimmerman.

In the end, here's what's going to happen: Zimmerman is going to be acquitted, but he'll be financially ruined. And then Martin's family is going to file a wrongful death lawsuit against Zimmerman—which is not subject to the same burden of proof, being a civil case—and they are going to try and punish Zimmerman for the rest of his life by financially crippling him even further. How do we know this? We know this because those opposed to Zimmerman are calling for his arrest, DEAD or alive, even though he was already arrested. We know because Al Sharpton is involved, and he'll raise the legal funds to try and cook Zimmerman's goose, and he hates white folk. We know because the media is going to spin the story to help them win their suit. We know it because there are very few honest people of decent character left in the country, and this is exactly the kind of blood lust they're begging for.

That's what's going to happen.

[Jusster]

No offense but all you really have is the eyewitnesses. The testing you are raising is inconclusive, does not prove anything. The eyewitnesses agree that GZ was on the bottom calling for help. This is not really a fact in dispute.

Actually it is....the eyewitnesses may have seen Martin on top at one point, but if you listen to the 911 call's there are other witnesses who state that Zimmerman was on top at some point as well. In fact, they say another eyewitness has come forward as well who said they saw the whole thing.

No offense taken, but I’m sure there will be bullet trajectories that will come into play to determine if Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the shot was fired. There will probably be some type of analysis of Zimmermans clothing to determine if the blood splatter or stippling are consistent with his story as well. There will be medical evidence introduced as to Zimmermans true injuries…etc…etc….it’s just my opinion but I have a feeling these things will determine whether Zimmerman goes home or to the big house.


Jusster

[Jusster]

In the police report Zimmerman said he was screaming for help. He had no way to know it was being recorded. The cries for help I think are his as it fits exactly with his statement.

Or...Zimmerman knew Martin was screaming for help and he wanted to make it appear that it was him to validate his self defense claim.....so he told LEO he was screaming for help instead of Martin.


Jusster

He wasn't even being questioned when he said it. It was a spontaneous utterance. Who would come up with that so fast? I wouldn't.

I am pretty sure that zimmerman was getting the insides kicked out of him when he fired, but I want to know why zimmerman was so close to Martin after 911 told him to stop pursuit and he said "ok"

Because Martin circled around and came up behind him. Martin approached Zimmerman to attack him.

And that would be pure speculation on your part……


Jusster

[jmra]

The whole problem with voice analysis in this case is lack of proper controls. I'll give an example, if you try to compare Gomer Pyle's talking voice to Gomer Pyle's singing voice you are going to get a very low percentage match. But compare two conversational voices (one being the known Gomer Pyle voice or the control, the other being an unknown) and you can tell with great confidence if it is a match.
In order to properly compare the screaming voice to Zimmermans voice you would need a control where Zimmerman was screaming in a very panicked voice. Without the proper control you have very little chance of proving or disproving anything.