Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to see it. I'm leaning toward the idea that this is good science.

Facts:

• The Times Sentinel hired two separate third party experts to do the analysis.
• Both excluded Zimmerman as a match.

For me, here and now, that meets the preponderance of evidence standard in order to form an opinion. But I would love as much evidence as I can get my hands on.

I'd like to see the data too but I couldn't find it online. That's why I'm looking at all the other evidence like 2 separate findings agreeing.

But the naysayers are essentially saying, yes you have all this overwhelming evidence but you don't have X therefore we dismiss the findings. Their arguments are a fail.

 

[totoro]

First off, welcome to the forum.

Secondly, this case will have nothing to do with the Stand Your Ground statute that Florida has. And, quite frankly, I like the idea of not having to run away when someone is attacking me. I should be able to stand my ground, and meet force with force.



I agree, to a point.

1-We shouldn't be letting any crazy people have guns, period.

2-There was nothing in Florida's laws that precluded Zimmerman from having a gun, and nothing prevented him for obtaining a CWP.

I thought the crux (or one of the cruxes anyway) of the matter was the immunity statute, under which Zimmerman was considered to be immune since he thought he was threatened.

Am I misunderstanding this? I could be, but this is the understanding I've gotten from what I've read about this.

My fundamental problem with such laws is that you can get someone intentionally starting fights and then shooting people when he feels "threatened". In fact, this is something that opponents of such laws have predicted as the outcome of instituting them.

Something pretty similar to that scenario seems to have happened here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Jumping in quite late to this topic: what source of Zimmerman's voice are they comparing the 911 calls to?

They are comparing Zimmerman on his phone calling 911 to two separate witness calls to 911 at the same time where someone yelling for help can be heard in the background.

 

[Alt+F4]

From a preponderance of evidence standard I would not substitute your ad hoc critique over their expertise.

Well that's the issue. What expertise do they have in determining voice recognition based on a few seconds of screaming in a 911 call? None it seems, so how exactly are they experts regarding recordings like these?

What motivation do two independent experts have to make unsupported claims?

Even without an arrest there will be several civil suits, against Zimmerman, the police department and probably the homeowner's association. Folks got to pay the bills and there is nothing like free publicity.

 

[Alt+F4]

They are comparing Zimmerman on his phone calling 911 to two separate witness calls to 911 at the same time where someone yelling for help can be heard in the background.

Yes and again how are voices different when under stress vs. normal speaking? Why did Mr. Owen, the expert, need multiple samples of Shiela Davalloo's voice to make a determination that she was the 911 caller in her murder trial?

 

[RandFan]

Well that's the issue. What expertise do they have in determining voice recognition based on a few seconds of screaming in a 911 call? None it seems, so how exactly are they experts regarding calls like these?

What expertise does my doctor have to read the diagnostics on my heart? Perhaps none. I'm more than happy to rely on their "expertise". That I might doubt my doctor is no reason for me to try and persuade others that the guy diagnoses unreasonably. Look, I get that you think you've discovered something compelling to impeach two independent experts. I'm sorry but no.

Now, if I were asserting that Zimmerman is now guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then you would have a point. I don't. I simply think it is more likely than not.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well it's obvious that in emotional cases like this, people tend to "take sides". IMO, the question of who was doing the screaming was a key point of evidence to resolve. People in this thread expected experts to testify at trial (if there ever is a trial). So having one of those experts take a stab at the tapes is pretty big news. Having two experts come to the same conclusion is even more telling.

Which side is the skepticism side ? I'm trying to be on that one.

But since people have begun to "take sides", you can see that the last two pages are questioning if audio forensics is even a real thing, or is just "woo". That word, "woo" is being liberally bandied about, and the only reason if because everyone here realizes that if Zimmerman lied about screaming and that the voice is actually the kid he shot, he's cooked. And some people seem to not want that to happen, so they are shooting the messenger. If you're not, great. But you seem to be.

The spin in the article, IMHO, was voice biometrics and the easy voice software. Can we agree, in theory, you could go buy easy voice software for approx $5000 and approximate the results of Owen?

IOW - I see people not calling doubt on Owen - but on voice biometrics vs voice spectrography. It seems voice biometrics is much newer and less proven ? And it's all inside the magic software. Two voices go in, a result comes out. Unless you either a) show me the code or b) show me the studies - can't I be a little suspect that maybe he is trying to sell a product ? And that maybe the lack of a match is a failure of the product ?

It's not as if we didn't have 2 eyewitnesses + zimmerman claim zimmerman was yelling for help. The recordings don't exist in a vacuum where we have no other evidence of who was yelling.

You know what would be interesting and useful .... to see if any recordings the parents must have of TM match the call either. Because if neither match, then you got something interesting.

And in this case, we have two people contacted by a neutral news organization who are calling George Zimmerman a liar. If there are other experts who dispute this, I'm open to their reasons. But calling these two men scientific frauds, with zero evidence, is the hallmark of the AGW deniers.

How about Ed Primeau http://edprimeau.com/expert-witness/

"My philosophy is that forensics examination and restoration of audio/video media ideally combines art, as well as science. The methods that an expert uses require attention to detail and scientific principles, complemented by an appreciation for clarity and aesthetics. My techniques are derived from both formal education and application of skills gained by working in many forensics situations."

Is that science or not ?

Also, what are your thoughts on this:
http://expertpages.com/news/american_board_voice_comparison.htm
This standard specifies recommended practices for the handling, preparation and analysis of recorded evidence to be followed by practitioners of the aural/spectrographic method of speaker identification.

If this is accurate, do we have any evidence or indication the " recommended practices for the handling, preparation and analysis of recorded evidence" were followed - even a little bit ?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Yes and again how are voices different when under stress vs. normal speaking? Why did Mr. Owen, the expert, need multiple samples of Shiela Davalloo's voice to make a determination that she was the 911 caller in her murder trial?

I would imagine that (like with limited DNA evidence) it is easier to rule someone out than to positively confirm a match.

 

[totoro]

Then why haven't you picked up on the fact that the study was for spectrographic voice identification and the scream was analyzed using biometric voice identification?

I didn't think the study you're talking about seemed like it was even on the same subject either.

That being said, it's kind of hard to say what the biometric voice id software being used even does, since the authors don't say.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have been doing some Googling on the subject of voice identification, in fact it's what initially brought me to this thread. Here are a couple of links so far, for anyone interested in reading them. These are not cherry picked to support my skepticism, in fact I haven't even read them yet.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167639399000795
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/16500/InTech-Speaker_recognition.pdf

The first one is over a decade old so I skipped it. From the second one:

In the recent decades, fully automated speaker recognition systems have been developed and are in use (Beigi, 2011).

It really doesn't offer much more insight than that as applied to this case. The hand wavers here completely dismiss the expertise of Tom Owen and all the evidence supporting his competency to draw the conclusion he draws.

 

[Alt+F4]

Look, I get that you think you've discovered something compelling to impeach two independent experts. I'm sorry but no.

They aren't experts on determining who is and isn't screaming in a 911 call, based only on a few 911 calls. As far as I can figure out, no one is. You will probably trust your doctors because they both have expertise on anxiety and heart disease.

 

[Alt+F4]

The hand wavers here completely dismiss the expertise of Tom Owen and all the evidence supporting his competency to draw the conclusion he draws.

Please, in case I missed it, explain what Tom Owen's competency is in determining who is screaming in a 911 call.

 

[Alt+F4]

I would imagine that (like with limited DNA evidence) it is easier to rule someone out than to positively confirm a match.

Oh I agree, but in the Davalloo trial Mr. Owen testified that it was indeed her voice on the 911 call.

 

[totoro]

That statement speaks for itself.

We don't know who initiated the incident. You've just convinced yourself that the act of following someone comprises "initiating".

Exactly. You basically don't care about any fact at all other than what confirms your preconceived notions.

IF he was on the ground being hit in the face and having his head slammed into the ground it MIGHT be deemed justifiable, regardless of the stand your ground law.

Yes, you keep harping on that. But one could just as easily determine that Zimmerman's following was not an aggressive act in and of itself.

I'm not sure why you'd conclude that just because I want to know the truth and have all the facts before I render a decision that I am a gun fan. Seems you like to jump to all sorts of conclusions. I hate guns and believe we should have much better gun control laws.

Well, you're clearly clairvoyant then.

Sorry I was such a dick. I got overly worked up.

But at the same time, it seems to me incontrovertible that

1. contact was initiated by Zimmerman
2. Zimmerman went into the incident armed
3. Martin died

The incident simply would not have happened had Zimmerman chosen to report his "suspicions" to the police and leave it at that. It doesn't matter how much dancing around the fact that you do, or what you say about how threatened he felt (or even how threatened he was, once he initiated contact). There isn't even any question about who initiated contact. Without contact, none of it happens.

Whether Zimmerman was threatened and thus "justified" in using his gun only even comes into play once he has made his decision, and contact is made.

The idea that one can tell the police dispatcher "ok" after being told not to follow someone, then complaining that "they" "get away" too easily and follow him _while armed_ can somehow be construed as not aggressive is not one I'm willing to accept. Following someone around, as a plain old citizen, while armed, with the intent of getting in a confrontation with him, is an act of aggression to me, and probably to most/many other people as well.

 

[RandFan]

They aren't experts on determining who is and isn't screaming in a 911 call, based only on a few 911 calls.

Ad hoc rationalization based on bias. You are just asserting this. You are not an expert on who is an expert in this instance. But you seem to think that everyone should just accept your assertion. In my opinion the experts are capable of excluding Zimmerman. Further I find nothing controversial about that. But that's just my opinion. You seem to have the certainty of an expert and quite frankly, I'm not buying it.

 

[RandFan]

I would imagine that (like with limited DNA evidence) it is easier to rule someone out than to positively confirm a match.

Oh I agree, but in the Davalloo trial Mr. Owen testified that it was indeed her voice on the 911 call.

Then it would seem to follow that excluding Zimmerman would not require the same standards as matching Davalloo.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Oh I agree, but in the Davalloo trial Mr. Owen testified that it was indeed her voice on the 911 call.

Because he had multiple samples of her voice....?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't think the study you're talking about seemed like it was even on the same subject either.

That being said, it's kind of hard to say what the biometric voice id software being used even does, since the authors don't say.

What it does is stated on the web page I linked to above.

Easy Voice Biometrics is an affordable “Audio Lineup”. One of the most time-consuming jobs of the Forensics technician is wading through possible identities and trying to match small snippets of audio information. Because it can quickly compare several files in order to find the closest match, Easy Voice Biometrics helps narrow the field of possible identities and allows the technician to focus crucial time and energy on the closest match.

"The ability of Easy Voice Biometrics to eliminate suspects on under cover recordings and terrorists "live" recordings shortcuts the elimination process for Law Enforcement and saves hundreds of hours while doing it. They can then focus their time on stronger voice matches" says Tom Owen, one of this country’s foremost authorities on Audio Forensics.

So basically all the hand waving dismissals are also ignoring the fact a thorough evaluation is made in addition to using this software.

 

[Alt+F4]

Ad hoc rationalization based on bias. You are just asserting this. You are not an expert on who is an expert in this instance. But you seem to think that everyone should just accept your assertion. In my opinion the experts are capable of excluding Zimmerman. Further I find nothing controversial about that. But that's just my opinion. You seem to have the certainty of an expert and quite frankly, I'm not buying it.

I'm an expert in two categories, one being common sense. Common sense tells me that someone can't be an expert in an area where they claim no expertise in and where no standards for expertise have been established.

I don't think everyone should just accept my assertions. Where are you getting that from? Everyone can, and will, think whatever they want to. I give nothing by my opinion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please, in case I missed it, explain what Tom Owen's competency is in determining who is screaming in a 911 call.

Frankly I'm getting tired of wasting my time. He is one of the top audio forensics analysts in the country. He's published, he's involved in accreditation of other audio experts, he clearly believes in strict scientific principles. But go ahead, dismiss him as a quack. Frankly it makes you, WC and AvalonXQ look bad, not me.