• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unabogie said:
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.
Click to expand...

It sure is, I have been interested because I am terrified this could have happened to my son.

That does not mean that I do not have questions about the reliability of a method in the given situation.
 
RandFan said:
This is simply setting a standard based on.... what? What is your expertise to make these assumptions? What is your basis for where the bar gets set? Isn't this a bit like the crockaduck? Perhaps, and I'm spit-balling here, perhaps the expert whose testimony, unlike polygraph experts, was allowed into court actually knows something that you don't. Perhaps he doesn't have to prove to you anything in order to testify in court? I could be wrong, perhaps you are the expert that judges turn to for advice in these matters.
Click to expand...

One of the things I have found odd about this discussion is people who clearly have no idea at all about how this kind of software works arguing about exactly which distortion matters and how much.

If one has absolutely no idea how it works to the point of calling it "woo", turning around and saying in a second breath "but will it work with X level of distortion?", when nobody even knows what kind of distortion was present in the recordings being analyzed is just double pleading.

And honestly, anyone with an undergraduate engineering degree or equivalent can at least read some papers on the topic to get an idea what the basic techniques are and whether they're woo. They're not.

At the same time, the tests can't be trusted completely until they have been made by experts on both sides and subjected to verification. That's kind of the point of the system.

At this point, it's suggestive that Zimmerman was lying, especially given that there are two tests that point the same way. These tests will need to be verified, yes.

But what seems to be getting argued here is that they are so invalid that they shouldn't even get tested in court. I submit that this itself is for the most part an argument from ignorance, which is a sort of poor man's woo.
 
Dancing David said:
It sure is, I have been interested because I am terrified this could have happened to my son.

That does not mean that I do not have questions about the reliability of a method in the given situation.
Click to expand...

Are worried he might be shot by some stranger who thought he was "suspicious", or that he might shoot someone and get convicted on the basis of speaker recognition software?

Since there don't seem to be any good grounds for Martin being suspicious (other than the obvious elephant in the room, which for some reason we aren't talking about), I don't understand this. Any random person could have been targeted by Zimmerman (if we claim he wasn't racially motivated). If he was racially motivated, then things are uglier.
 
Last edited:
totoro said:
One of the things I have found odd about this discussion is people who clearly have no idea at all about how this kind of software works arguing about exactly which distortion matters and how much.

If one has absolutely no idea how it works to the point of calling it "woo", turning around and saying in a second breath "but will it work with X level of distortion?", when nobody even knows what kind of distortion was present in the recordings being analyzed is just double pleading.

And honestly, anyone with an undergraduate engineering degree or equivalent can at least read some papers on the topic to get an idea what the basic techniques are and whether they're woo. They're not.

At the same time, the tests can't be trusted completely until they have been made by experts on both sides and subjected to verification. That's kind of the point of the system.

At this point, it's suggestive that Zimmerman was lying, especially given that there are two tests that point the same way. These tests will need to be verified, yes.

But what seems to be getting argued here is that they are so invalid that they shouldn't even get tested in court. I submit that this itself is for the most part an argument from ignorance, which is a sort of poor man's woo.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Exactly. And if had to vote today, guilty or not guilty I'd vote Not guilty precisely because I have not heard a rebuttal.
 
totoro said:
But what seems to be getting argued here is that they are so invalid that they shouldn't even get tested in court. I submit that this itself is for the most part an argument from ignorance, which is a sort of poor man's woo.
Click to expand...
There's nothing ignorant about it. No one has provided any evidence that any voice recognition technique can be used to match a scream (and a very short, low quality recording at that) with a spoken voice.

These 2 self-proclaimed experts claim to have done this. If so, it would be an unprecedented advance in voice recognition capabilities.

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
 
johnny karate said:
Zimmerman acted in contradiction to what the police dispatcher advised him, and in violation of the rules of the neighborhood watch program with which he claims to be affiliated.
Click to expand...

TheL8Elvis said:
The hilited claim ... that I already addressed
Click to expand...


Sorry, you'll have to elaborate. What part of that claim is false?

Zimmerman did claim to be affiliated with a neighborhood watch program.

Zimmerman did violate the rules of said neighborhood watch program.
 
RandFan said:
This is simply setting a standard based on.... what? What is your expertise to make these assumptions? What is your basis for where the bar gets set? Isn't this a bit like the crockaduck? Perhaps, and I'm spit-balling here, perhaps the expert whose testimony, unlike polygraph experts, was allowed into court actually knows something that you don't. Perhaps he doesn't have to prove to you anything in order to testify in court? I could be wrong, perhaps you are the expert that judges turn to for advice in these matters.
Click to expand...

*shakes head*

The degree of evidence denial on this issue is staggering, and something I wouldn't have expected to see outside of a 9/11 conspiracy theory website.
 
johnny karate said:
*shakes head*

The degree of evidence denial on this issue is staggering, and something I wouldn't have expected to see outside of a 9/11 conspiracy theory website.
Click to expand...
Hi johnny, you have evidence that any voice recognition method has ever been used to match a scream to a voice?

No?

Didn't think so, but thanks for playing!
 
totoro said:
Hmm. Maybe. The software and libraries I use tend to have pretty exhaustive technical documentation available freely. ...
Click to expand...
You don't know if the technical data is available or not. I'm saying just because you don't see it online doesn't mean it isn't available.
 
WildCat said:
Hi johnny, you have evidence that any voice recognition method has ever been used to match a scream to a voice?

No?

Didn't think so, but thanks for playing!
Click to expand...

Hi WildCat, do you have any basis whatsoever to question the methods and conclusions of bona fide experts?

No?

I'd thank you for playing, but when it comes to audio forensics, you're not even in the game.
 
Dancing David said:
I did no such thing, these are legitimate sampling questions, that will be brought up if the is evidence is presented at trial.


When we know the phone that made the call and the technique used to store the dispatcher call, then we can talk about what sampling artifacts there might be. But no assumptions about the audio quality can be made at this time.
Click to expand...
While I did not lump you in with the other three, you also are failing to consider the opinion was given by what appears to be one of the top forensic audio analysts in the country. Why are you implying you have legitimate challenges to his assessment that you don't believe he made just because the analysis is not spelled out for you in the news article? Would you be making the same kind of challenge if the top psychiatrist in the country was giving a forensic opinion or would you be wording it differently?


How about, "Owen may have to show [xyz] when he gets to court (if he were called to testify) but I think it's safe to assume he knows that"?


The audacity of the challenges here sound like people consider themselves to be equally qualified in this area. The newspaper probably couldn't have found a more qualified expert in the field than Owen. He's clearly recognized by his peers.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Still not saying anything different than what the polygraph experts say.
Industry credentials and "expertise" do not reliable science make. Reliable techniques are developed for controlled conditions. I've not seen any papers indicating the reliability of determinations with this degree of acoustic distortion. If you know of any, share them; your arguments from authority are of little evidentiary value.
Click to expand...
You've made no case audio forensics is on the same level as polygraphs and we've posted evidence in the thread where the audio evidence has been accepted in court while polygraphs generally are not.

It's not up to me to further support this is legit science, I documented it was. It's your turn to post evidence supporting your claim audio forensics is no better than polygraphs.
 
Natural Born Skeptic said:
You keep pointing that out again and again. 2 out of 2. Oh my, I mean, look at that, what are the chances they'd both come to the same conclusion? :p
Click to expand...
If their opinions were arbitrary, 50%. Same is true for two doctors producing the same binary diagnosis.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
This. ^^^
Click to expand...
I was under the impression the expert conclusion was it is not GZ yelling for help on the tape. Where is the level of doubt? Some forum expert wannabe's opinions they aren't satisfied?

None of the naysayers in this discussion are arguing in their fields of expertise, they are arguing about something they have a passing knowledge of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom