Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

They've been called for here, but I doubt any which would replicate what was analyzed in this specific event even exist.

Notwithstanding that, though, apparently the analyst/sales rep making the claim of "scientific certainty" has a very glitzy looking CV. And glossy business cards printed on premium stock.

Don't forget the degree in history.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Sitting here thinking about this, if I was Zimmerman and that was me shouting on the tape, one of the things I'd be doing right now is testing if I could duplicate it under similar circumstances. If he ends up getting charged, and could provide a recording of him reenacting that (assuming the court would allow it), and have the voice sound like the one on 911, that could be the defining issue in the trial.

As lane99 said earlier in the thread, even then it would not prove he was in the right, nevertheless, it would be powerful testimony in his favor.

 

[lane99]

"Seat on da bed, Jeri"

Just a short couple months ago, a short couple hours down the road from Sanford, a murder case was contested wherein Eazy Peasy Voice Recognizer (sic?)- if it worked at all (and I'll presume it does, within reason)- would have virtually removed all doubt as to the guilty party.

It's the murder trial of Patrick Evans. I have no idea if EPVR, or any other voice recognition software, was utilized in that case.

And there are many other cases (both cold and current) that could be well informed by a tool that could actually perform with the accuracy its promoter claims.

 

[epepke]

Fair enough .

Like I said early on, part of the reason for my extreme skepticism here is the field I work in and having worked with a lot of audio engineers over the years, and seeing how much woo is involved and how incredibly subjective it is.

Pfui. I don't see anything remotely resembling extreme skepticism here.

WHat I see is a position thus:

Resolved: That a report by a reporter supposedly having come from a supposed expert on recognition-by-voice technology that just happens to be of his own software which just happens to be from the company where he works which just happens to be run by his daughter which just happens to give him a month's advantage in bidding for contracts in Florida is so totally compelling that not affirming automatic, vigorous assent is perverse and can only be explained as confirmation bias by people who have already decided that GZ is innocent.

I think that this was quite adequately fleshed out by Skeptic Ginger, though added to somewhat by Keivn Lowe, who introduced the idea of libel.

This is not a serious discussion. It certainly isn't a skeptical discussion. It is, largely, a serious of applications of emotional pressure by a majority group who has made up their minds to a high precision exactly what happened and who expect everyone to go along with their narrative Or Else™.

Look. Just count the paragraphs criticizing, condemning, or just plain insulting and haranguing people for not getting with The Program™ with posts seriously, actually condemning Spike Lee's decision to retweet identifying materials for the wrong George Zimmerman. This isn't serious. This is joke material. This is the genuine Orwellian article, the basic Senator Joe McCarthy with his multiple untruths.

 

[nadsat]

I think it was wrong for Wildcat and others to dismiss these "experts" as woo but I think criticisms of their techniques are valid, especially when the 2nd expert made the same criticisms and dismisses the first experts techniques. The 2nd expert hasn't made any formal analysis and formed his opinion from just listening to the recordings online. Here is the 2nd expert's outline for a formal analysis/identification:

http://trueaudioforensics.blogspot.com/2010/01/audio-forensics.html

Voice identification requires the forensic examiner to discover similarities, as well as differences, in all three areas of investigation.
Here are the step-by-step processes I use when conducting voice identification:

1. Visual examination of the original recording, analogue or digital. This includes examination of the physical characteristics of the tape itself (if analogue) or analogue or digital recorder. It is important to examine the cassette tape (standard, mini or micro) or other analogue or digital source to determine if there are visual signs of tampering or alteration.

2. Once the physical evidence has been examined, the next step is to load the recording in question into a forensic computer. Visual examination of the sound wave, sonogram and spectrograph reveal speech characteristics and patterns of verbal delivery as well as electronic characteristics. At this point, the recording has been digitized so forensic software can analyze and conduct various tests.

3. If possible, for authentication or voice identification, an exemplar or comparison recording should be made of the original recording to compare the original recording characteristics. This same forensic examination process that is applied to the evidence is also applied to the exemplar to determine that the characteristics are the same and the recording is from the same audio recorder.

4. When conducting voice identification, it is important to create an exemplar of the accused for audio comparison using as exact conditions and equipment as close as possible to the measurements taken from the evidence as outlined above. The speech must be the same as the speech on the evidence in order for the testing to be accurate. As an audio forensic expert, I often have to coach the accused into the same energetic voice tone and inflection as the evidence recording. However, it is still possible to compare speech if the exemplar is not as close to the evidence as I would like.

5. Critical listening skills are used to examine the speech pattern, pronunciation, voice tone and inflection, accent, dialect and specific speech characteristics (like a lisp or significant “s” delivery). There is a rhythm in how an individual speaks, and even if s/he is trying to disguise his/her speech (in an attempt to fool the forensic examiner), the rhythm and speech patterns as described above still show through. The expert must pay careful attention to the rhythm of spoken word formations. I listen to single words as well as phrases and sentences.

I want to see this guy's formal analysis and will trust his findings because it seems much more thorough.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

One of the things I find interesting reading this thread is how some people immediately project what they think others must believe, merely because of the others opinion on one small facet of the case. For instance, it would appear that some people believe that if someone is skeptical of the voice recognition that it must mean that they think George Zimmerman is innocent or that Travon Martin was a thug. One person even suggested I must like guns. In my case, all it means is I am skeptical of the voice recognition. Just as I am skeptical of say, lie detectors. I don't think a lie detector would answer whether OJ Simpson was guilty either, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's guilty as hell.

In this case I have no idea what the full facts of the case will be once they come out. I just don't buy the voice identification. And I wouldn't buy it if the "experts" said it was Zimmerman screaming either.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Pfui. I don't see anything remotely resembling extreme skepticism here.

WHat I see is a position thus:

Resolved: That a report by a reporter supposedly having come from a supposed expert on recognition-by-voice technology that just happens to be of his own software which just happens to be from the company where he works which just happens to be run by his daughter which just happens to give him a month's advantage in bidding for contracts in Florida is so totally compelling that not affirming automatic, vigorous assent is perverse and can only be explained as confirmation bias by people who have already decided that GZ is innocent.

I think that this was quite adequately fleshed out by Skeptic Ginger, though added to somewhat by Keivn Lowe, who introduced the idea of libel.

This is not a serious discussion. It certainly isn't a skeptical discussion. It is, largely, a serious of applications of emotional pressure by a majority group who has made up their minds to a high precision exactly what happened and who expect everyone to go along with their narrative Or Else™.

Look. Just count the paragraphs criticizing, condemning, or just plain insulting and haranguing people for not getting with The Program™ with posts seriously, actually condemning Spike Lee's decision to retweet identifying materials for the wrong George Zimmerman. This isn't serious. This is joke material. This is the genuine Orwellian article, the basic Senator Joe McCarthy with his multiple untruths.

I read your post twice and I still don't have a clue who you're agreeing with, if anyone .

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Pfui. I don't see anything remotely resembling extreme skepticism here.

WHat I see is a position thus:

Resolved: That a report by a reporter supposedly having come from a supposed expert on recognition-by-voice technology that just happens to be of his own software which just happens to be from the company where he works which just happens to be run by his daughter which just happens to give him a month's advantage in bidding for contracts in Florida is so totally compelling that not affirming automatic, vigorous assent is perverse and can only be explained as confirmation bias by people who have already decided that GZ is innocent.

I think that this was quite adequately fleshed out by Skeptic Ginger, though added to somewhat by Keivn Lowe, who introduced the idea of libel.

Thanks for that straw man.

I've stated that I've no strong opinion either way on the accuracy of the claimed voice analysis software, nor a strong opinion either way on what happened (although I think it more likely than not that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation and that the shooting was not in self-defence). So it is a straw man argument of considerable perversity to claim that I said anything like what you are now attributing to me.

I was just pointing out that Wildcat was insulting and attacking people who were by all accounts respected experts in their field, based on absolutely nothing except Wildcat's unsupported incredulity. I don't think that's acceptable behaviour.

This is not a serious discussion. It certainly isn't a skeptical discussion. It is, largely, a serious of applications of emotional pressure by a majority group who has made up their minds to a high precision exactly what happened and who expect everyone to go along with their narrative Or Else™.

You can make up a narrative where that's what's going on if it makes you feel all persecuted and special.

Look. Just count the paragraphs criticizing, condemning, or just plain insulting and haranguing people for not getting with The Program™ with posts seriously, actually condemning Spike Lee's decision to retweet identifying materials for the wrong George Zimmerman. This isn't serious. This is joke material. This is the genuine Orwellian article, the basic Senator Joe McCarthy with his multiple untruths.

You know you're in SI&CE when you hear someone trundling out the "they haven't condemned X enough!" talking point.

Spike Lee's an irresponsible idiot and if his actions lead to anyone getting hurt I hope he gets sued off the face of the Earth. The nutbags offering money for Zimmerman's kidnapping are worse. Happy now? Can we go back to discussing the case?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Spike Lee's an irresponsible idiot and if his actions lead to anyone getting hurt I hope he gets sued off the face of the Earth. The nutbags offering money for Zimmerman's kidnapping are worse. Happy now? Can we go back to discussing the case?

Exactly, I'm not sure how or why anyone should be being expected to repudiate that idiot.

On the subject of woo, I want to clarify something. When I say that I think the voice identification is woo, I am not for a second suggesting that the entire field is woo. For instance, I'd certainly think that with today's technology it should be possible to identify whether a voice is the same in a controlled setting with good quality recordings.

Rather, I'm suggesting that I think these two guys stating they can eliminate Zimmerman as the screamer based on the 911 calls, one of which consists of a person screaming from outside - that I strongly suspect is woo. But by the same token, if the supposed leader in his field is willing to make such a claim, well, it does make me really wonder about most of the testimony from these "experts".

 

[totoro]

Exactly, I'm not sure how or why anyone should be being expected to repudiate that idiot.

On the subject of woo, I want to clarify something. When I say that I think the voice identification is woo, I am not for a second suggesting that the entire field is woo. For instance, I'd certainly think that with today's technology it should be possible to identify whether a voice is the same in a controlled setting with good quality recordings.

Rather, I'm suggesting that I think these two guys stating they can eliminate Zimmerman as the screamer based on the 911 calls, one of which consists of a person screaming from outside - that I strongly suspect is woo. But by the same token, if the supposed leader in his field is willing to make such a claim, well, it does make me really wonder about most of the testimony from these "experts".

I don't think any of us are conversant enough with the technology to make that determination. That really is what duelling experts at trial time is for. None of us here has played with the software, or run models of this kind of data. If all of the hullaballoo about this causes an actual trial, then that's all for the good, since the point of a trial is to nail dowm what actually happened.

 

[Mumbles]

Exactly, I'm not sure how or why anyone should be being expected to repudiate that idiot.

It's a bit of a game in the US - sort of like how any prominent black politician has to reject and denounce Louis Farrakhan. Martin's parents, and the various leaders they've called up, have already denounced these efforts in any case.

On the subject of woo, I want to clarify something. When I say that I think the voice identification is woo, I am not for a second suggesting that the entire field is woo. For instance, I'd certainly think that with today's technology it should be possible to identify whether a voice is the same in a controlled setting with good quality recordings.

Rather, I'm suggesting that I think these two guys stating they can eliminate Zimmerman as the screamer based on the 911 calls, one of which consists of a person screaming from outside - that I strongly suspect is woo. But by the same token, if the supposed leader in his field is willing to make such a claim, well, it does make me really wonder about most of the testimony from these "experts".

The point, though, is that it's hardly the one piece of evidence that puts Zimmerman in a bad light. We know that he had a history of racial profiling. We know that he was driving, and decided to trail Martin in his car. We know that when Martin fled, he pursued on foot. We know that he was agitated to the point of cursing when he did so. We know he has a history of such matters. We know that Martin had a legitimate reason to be where he was, and that you don't really need a reason to walk around at 7:30 pm. We know that Zimmerman pursued even after 911 advised him not to. We know that he shot and killed Martin. We know that Martin was unarmed. We know that the two had an extended,fight, which usually consists of two people wrestling around. We know that he was relatively uninjured, able to move freely, a mere half hour after the fight, when he was supposedly bloody and battered. We also know that several of his surrogates, including the Sanford Police chief, have made false statements about Zimmerman's actions.

And thus, the only credible person who claims they saw Zimmerman yelling for help, is a single person who probably didn't see much at all, and could easily be confused. On the other hand, we have Martin's parents who claim that the scream is Martin's, and two experts using two methods, who agree that it isn't Zimmerman, and the scenario where Martin is trying to avoid a confrontation, and Zimmerman is trying to cause one.

skepticism is fine, of course, but many people are reacting to how this fits in with the rest of the evidence, which thus far, put Zimmerman in an extremely bad light.

 

[Information Analyst]

Yes, and even with all of the maps, has anyone figured out exactly where Zimmerman was when he saw Martin?

If Zimmerman really was heading out of the complex, as his supporters claim, then it seems most likely that he first saw Martin as he was returning through the main entrance.

Where he was when he said to the dispatcher, "I don't know where he is..."

Either in the cut-though or - more likely - on Retreat View Circle, i.e. nearer to the back entrance he was (incorrectly) convinced Martin was heading for.

Does anyone know how dark it is, between the rows of houses, when it's raining and the moon is covered?

This image appears to show the cut-through, with the crossing/Twin Trees Lane on the right. Even allowing for the TV/police flood lights, there's clearly lighting on the back of the houses, so it's not going to be pitch-black, how ever much rain, or little moonlight:

Thanks, you could have skipped that entire post and just put that. We all could be completely wrong.

I suspect some people have more to be worried about the reality being the opposite of their preferred version than simply being "wrong." Too many, I suspect, have automatically sides with Zimmerman, because they do want any challenge to the idea that they can respond to a similar situation in the same way to the sort of threat Zimmerman only (and incorrectly) thought he was facing. By the same token, others are rightly concerned that someone completely innocent of any wrongdoing can end up dead in such a situation.

 

[Dan O.]

That's interesting, there appears to be a pickup parked In the exact same spot on the corner as it was in the Google maps view. Do we have any more information on the vehicle George was driving that night?

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry for jumping in without having followed the full discussion but I am electronic/computer music geek and have a lot of hobbyist knowledge in the audio software realm.

For the audio analysis are the "experts" just comparing the publicly available 911 call that Zimmermen made to the overheard screams that could be heard on a different 911 call later that night?

Yes

 

[Cylinder]

What is the threshold for exclusion of Zimmerman in the voice analysis?

After a quick search, I found this:

When the analysis is complete the examiner integrates his findings from both the aural and spectrographic analyses into one of five standard conclusions; a positive identification, a probable identification, a positive elimination, a probable elimination, or no decision. In order to arrive at a positive identification the examiner must find a minimum of twenty speech sounds which possess sufficient aural and spectrographic similarities. There can be no differences either aural or spectrographic for which there can be no accounting.

The probable identification conclusion is reached when there are less then twenty similarities and no unexplained differences. This conclusion is usually reached when working with small samples, random speech samples or recordings of lower quality. The result of positive elimination is rendered when twenty differences between the samples are found that can not be based on any fact other than different voices having produced the samples. A probable elimination decision is usually reached when working with limited text or a recording of lower quality. The no decision conclusion is used when the quality of the recording is so poor that there is insufficient information with which to work or when there are too few common speech sounds suitable for comparison.

Since [the media claims] Owen has asserted that 48% of the speech sounds were found "that can not be based on any fact other than different voices having produced the samples," then we have to assume that - at minimum - of 42 distinct voice sounds used 23 were found that had "no differences either aural or spectrographic for which there can be no accounting."

How many questioned voice sounds were on this 911 recording?

 

[triforcharity]

I doubt seriously if any judge would make the rookie mistake of conflating the entire discipline with every new development within it.

The Frye standard doesn't depend on what was accepted in 1974, it depends on whether or not Easy Voice Biometrics software (or whatever makes it unique) is widely accepted in the field today.

The discipline can be rock solid, the *old* methods can be reliable, and the new process can be an amazing breakthrough... but if it is still 'cutting edge', it might never get into a Florida court, no matter how good it is.

If it never makes it into evidence, then it will fall into the category of 'correct but not useful'... if it does make it in, then the game of dueling experts may take place.

Looks dramatic, but still too early to know for a fact.

This type of technology reminds me of the "Scent expert" that appeared in the Casey Anthony trial. That is a very new technology, as was the hair analysis for decomposition, which was both allowed in the CA trial.

The biggest problem with that type evidence and testimony, is that it can sometimes be lost on jurors, as it's too science-y.

But, IMO, it seems to be accepted in previous court cases, so I would call it good enough for me. But, I am just a laymen when it comes to audio stuff. And by that, I mean I have an ipod, and I press play, and it works.

 

[triforcharity]

Seconded, very informative. Most of your posts have been explanations of details of the FL law. It isn't very cheerful but it's accurate.

Thanks Toto and KatieG, I appreciate it. I try my best. Sorry, it's a little dry, but law typically is.

 

[triforcharity]

Sitting here thinking about this, if I was Zimmerman and that was me shouting on the tape, one of the things I'd be doing right now is testing if I could duplicate it under similar circumstances. If he ends up getting charged, and could provide a recording of him reenacting that (assuming the court would allow it), and have the voice sound like the one on 911, that could be the defining issue in the trial.

As lane99 said earlier in the thread, even then it would not prove he was in the right, nevertheless, it would be powerful testimony in his favor.

I doubt it would be allowed, since I would think it would be next to impossible to reenact something like that, and even sound similar. When you're not actually in fear of your life, I would think it would be very difficult to act like you are.

But, I could be wrong.

 

[Newtons Bit]

All those links are to these same 2 clowns regarding the Martin incident.

It should have returned 0 hits.

 

[nadsat]

And thus, the only credible person who claims they saw Zimmerman yelling for help, is a single person who probably didn't see much at all, and could easily be confused. On the other hand, we have Martin's parents who claim that the scream is Martin's, and two experts using two methods, who agree that it isn't Zimmerman, and the scenario where Martin is trying to avoid a confrontation, and Zimmerman is trying to cause one.

The 2nd expert didn't use any methods at all and dismisses the first expert's techniques. Please read my post before this.

The police reported they played the scream recording for Martin's dad and he admitted it was not his son. So either the police is lying or Martin's dad changed his story.