Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Unabogie]

A doctor who's never seen him is basing his diagnosis on a grainy video that never gives a close up on his nose. I'll tell you, now I am convinced!

Sarcasm directed at doctor, not at you Unabogie.

Well, thanks. But I honestly don't know if the police took photos at all. I hope they did, since those will settle this issue. But the grainy video has had a wild ride.

1. No obvious injuries.
2. Daily Caller "enhances" the video (and hey, they found a HUGE GASH!)
3. ABC finds what looks like a wound.
4. Doctor says he'd expect more and the nose looks fine.

I noted that the video shows his shirt being clean. I don't see "wounds", personally, and it doesn't look like anything major, since I'd expect at least a bandaid (so does this doctor). But I would love to see clear, authenticated photos.

 

[Unabogie]

So the prosecutor denies that he or the police chief nixed the arrest of Zimmerman.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=hp_c1

n the letter delivered Monday, the Martin family said that a Sanford police detective "filed an affidavit stating that he did not find Zimmerman's statements credible in light of the circumstances and facts surrounding the shooting."

The family said Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee and State Attorney Norm Wolfinger met the night of the shooting and disregarded the detective's advice, letting Zimmerman go.
[...]
"I have been encouraging those spreading the irresponsible rhetoric to stop and allow State Attorney Angela Corey to complete her work," Wolfinger said in a statement Monday. "Another falsehood distributed to the media does nothing to forward that process."

Also from this link:

"There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International. "After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."

 

[sgtbaker]

Well, thanks. But I honestly don't know if the police took photos at all. I hope they did, since those will settle this issue. But the grainy video has had a wild ride.

1. No obvious injuries.
2. Daily Caller "enhances" the video (and hey, they found a HUGE GASH!)
3. ABC finds what looks like a wound.
4. Doctor says he'd expect more and the nose looks fine.

I noted that the video shows his shirt being clean. I don't see "wounds", personally, and it doesn't look like anything major, since I'd expect at least a bandaid (so does this doctor). But I would love to see clear, authenticated photos.

Trust me, me too. I have a hard time accepting the digital enhancements because the wounds seem to be a different shape in every one of them. I just don't understand the purpose of bringing in the opinion of a doctor who has access to the same exact images that we do. The local news channel did that except they brought in an chief from a different department. He said the same thing, "of course the quality of the video makes it difficult to tell but blah blah blah, I can't say for sure." Thanks! Care to add anything useful? I am sick of the news catching my attention with their breaking updates only to hear another persons opinion, who can't say for sure.

 

[sgtbaker]

So the prosecutor denies that he or the police chief nixed the arrest of Zimmerman.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=hp_c1



Also from this link:

I thought the falsehood was the supposed secret meeting between the prosecutor, chief, and Zimmerman's parents.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Fair points.

Would it not stand to reason that acting inappropriately would put his reputation at risk? What is his motivation to put his years and credibility on the line?

I think you're making a lot of assumptions. First of all, you're assuming he thinks like you. Secondly, you're assuming there's a high degree of risk with him taking this stance. I'm not sure if there is or not. I doubt anyone will be able to prove who's voice that was with or without certainty. And he'll always be able to insist that it isn't Zimmerman. Look at that nutcase Cyril Wecht who IIRC has claimed the alien autopsy looked real to claiming Kennedy's head could not have moved the way it did when it was shot. Has it stopped him from making millions?

Your statement also assumes that this is any different than most of his pronouncements (i.e. that this is different than usual) and I don't assume that either. I think there's a high degree of probability this guy is often offering opinions which cannot be backed up scientifically and it would not be the first time that's been the case with an expert witness.

That aside, you seem to be suggesting we should believe someone because "if he's wrong he's putting his reputation at risk". I don't accept that.

And it is reasonable to assume that the technology could advance sufficiently to change the rules. Why is that absurd? Do you deny that the technology of today isn't significantly better than it was 15 years ago?

The paper I linked to was written in 2003, 9 years old. No, it is not reasonable to just assume the technology has advanced that much. Why would we? I work in the audio field and I can tell you that the advances that have taken place in the last 10 years are incremental, not revolutionary. Everyone has this idea because of computers and Moores law that technology is advancing in leaps and bounds but in fact most technology progresses much slower. Of course I'm speaking in generalities but I think that as a generality it's true.

And in this case it would require advancements that are "sci fi" worthy.

 

[Unabogie]

I thought the falsehood was the supposed secret meeting between the prosecutor, chief, and Zimmerman's parents.

He denies "interfering".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-usa-florida-shooting-prosecutor-idUSBRE83116420120402

ABC News reported last week that Sanford police detective Chris Serino, unconvinced by Zimmerman's story of self-defense, wanted to charge him with manslaughter, but was overruled by Wolfinger's office.
A separate report by news website TheGrio.com, unconfirmed by Reuters, said Wolfinger left his home the Sunday night of the shooting to meet with Sanford police in person.
Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for the Martin family, asked the Justice Department in a letter on Monday to investigate those reports. Though the letter reported the events without attribution, Crump told Reuters his information came from the media reports and he did not have independent verification.
Wolfinger had declined all comment since removing himself from the case on March 22, but fired back in a statement on Monday.
"I am outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter by Benjamin Crump," Wolfinger said. "I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred."

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Fair points.


I think you're making a lot of assumptions. First of all, you're assuming he thinks like you. Secondly, you're assuming there's a high degree of risk with him taking this stance. I'm not sure if there is or not. I doubt anyone will be able to prove who's voice that was with or without certainty. And he'll always be able to insist that it isn't Zimmerman. Look at that nutcase Cyril Wecht who IIRC has claimed the alien autopsy looked real to claiming Kennedy's head could not have moved the way it did when it was shot. Has it stopped him from making millions?

Your statement also assumes that this is any different than most of his pronouncements (i.e. that this is different than usual) and I don't assume that either. I think there's a high degree of probability this guy is often offering opinions which cannot be backed up scientifically and it would not be the first time that's been the case with an expert witness.

That aside, you seem to be suggesting we should believe someone because "if he's wrong he's putting his reputation at risk". I don't accept that.


The paper I linked to was written in 2003, 9 years old. No, it is not reasonable to just assume the technology has advanced that much. Why would we? I work in the audio field and I can tell you that the advances that have taken place in the last 10 years are incremental, not revolutionary. Everyone has this idea because of computers and Moores law that technology is advancing in leaps and bounds but in fact most technology progresses much slower. Of course I'm speaking in generalities but I think that as a generality it's true.

And in this case it would require advancements that are "sci fi" worthy.

I took this from the abstract (bolding mine).

Our main conclusion is that, despite the existence of technological solutions to some constrained applications, at the present time, there is no
scientific process that enables one to uniquely characterize a person’s voice or to identify with absolute certainty an individual from his or her voice.

None of the cited experts in this case are claiming that they can identify the individual screaming with absolute certainty. They are excluding someone with reasonable certainty. There is a huge difference.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

None of the cited experts in this case are claiming that they can identify the individual screaming with absolute certainty. They are excluding someone with reasonable certainty. There is a huge difference.

That's an excellent point. If we were talking about controlled environment high quality recordings that logic might hold out. But we're talking about excluding one of two males based on screams heard through a telephone coming through walls. That's likely more difficult than making a positive identification under the ideal scenarios they are referring to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The thing that is utterly hilarious here is the people insistent on defending Owen either have no clue how easy it is to become an "expert" or don't care one way or the other.....

The number of false assumptions in your post are many.

But let's just look at this one in particular. I looked extensively at the accreditation and certification process involved in these forensics fields and found it followed faithfully the same accreditation and certification process used in the medical and nursing fields. The requirements might have been less than what it takes to be a certified family nurse practitioner, but as for those education requirements you so readily dismiss, the courses are accredited by

ACFEI is an approved provider of Continuing Education by the following:

» Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME)
» National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA)
» National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC)
» California Board of Registered Nursing (CBRN)
» American Psychological Association (APA)
» California Board of Behavioral Sciences (CBBS)
» Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB)
» American Dental Association (ADA CERP)

The AACME is the very organization that approves continuing education for physicians. The CBRN is considered the standard for continuing nursing education in the rest of the country, not just in California.

These academic accreditations mean the education involved here, the same thing you are dismissing as meaningless, meets the same standard your physician meets to maintain his or her license to practice.

I have 3 certifications in advanced nursing practice and I can guarantee you they were not easy to get.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

That's an excellent point. If we were talking about controlled environment high quality recordings that logic might hold out. But we're talking about excluding one of two males based on screams heard through a telephone coming through walls. That's likely more difficult than making a positive identification under the ideal scenarios they are referring to.

Only in your lay opinion?

It may be that there are certain voice markers that can rule out zimmerman with reasonable certainty, even with poor audio. Primeau seems pretty certain that it is a young adult's voice:

Ed Primeau agreed but went further, saying that, under the known circumstances, “ I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt. That’s a young man screaming.”

Maybe there are characteristics only present in the voice for a certain amount of time after the voice breaks, for example, that can be heard even with poor audio.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was not referring to the $35 paper. Here is a paper written by 6 scientists.

Are you OmegaWolf?

http://www.afcp-parole.org/doc/AFCP_SpLC_HotTopicsEurospeech03_final.pdf

Newest reference in that paper is 2003. Are you saying that is the 2009 paper Omega Wolf is referring to?

 

[RandFan]

I very much appreciate the tone of your post. Thanks.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions. First of all, you're assuming he thinks like you. Secondly, you're assuming there's a high degree of risk with him taking this stance. I'm not sure if there is or not. I doubt anyone will be able to prove who's voice that was with or without certainty. And he'll always be able to insist that it isn't Zimmerman.

I'm willing to grant you all of your premises. Starting from the null hypothesis I am trying to come to a conclusion as to Owen's assertion. Is it more likely than not that Owen is interested in his career enough to avoid making career ending decisions. One cannot know for certainty if a misstep will cost him or her their career. So, based on my thesis I would say it's less likely that he is acting imprudently.

Look at that nutcase Cyril Wecht who IIRC has claimed the alien autopsy looked real to claiming Kennedy's head could not have moved the way it did when it was shot. Has it stopped him from making millions?

Let's grant your presumption about Wecht (I'm no fan of his), at best it would demonstrate that experts can act imprudently and not suffer the consequences. That should not cause us to expect that most experts likewise believe that they can act so recklessly.

Your statement also assumes that this is any different than most of his pronouncements (i.e. that this is different than usual) and I don't assume that either. I think there's a high degree of probability this guy is often offering opinions which cannot be backed up scientifically and it would not be the first time that's been the case with an expert witness.

I don't understand the basis for your assertion nor do I share it.

That aside, you seem to be suggesting we should believe someone because "if he's wrong he's putting his reputation at risk".

No, I'm suggesting that it's something we ought to consider. I'm suggesting that it's sufficient for me to form an opinion and it's not unreasonable to form the opinion from that consideration.

The paper I linked to was written in 2003, 9 years old. No, it is not reasonable to just assume the technology has advanced that much. Why would we? I work in the audio field and I can tell you that the advances that have taken place in the last 10 years are incremental, not revolutionary. Everyone has this idea because of computers and Moores law that technology is advancing in leaps and bounds but in fact most technology progresses much slower. Of course I'm speaking in generalities but I think that as a generality it's true.

I am 50 years old. I became interested in computers when I was in elementary school. When I was in High School I purchased a book on binary code and taught myself binary coding. In college I took COBOL, BASIC, Pascal and RPG. When I was 25 I wrote spreadsheet templates to calculate proforma statements. I went on to become a computer consultant and programmer writing proprietary software solutions specializing in DBMS. I have for decades been interested in AI, and pattern recognition software and systems like Neural Networks. I follow the annual loebner, IJCAI awards. Sorry for the biography but I actually know a little bit about the state of the art. I don't agree with you that the net results of 9 years of advancement is simply incremental. A year, two, sure. 9 years? In 1993 Intel released it's first Pentium processor with a clock speed of 300 MHZ. The Jasper-Forest Intel processor has max clock speed of 3.2 GHZ (I won't go into why raw clock speed isn't the whole story). That's not incremental. I won't bore you with much more but SIRI would very likely not been possible 9 years ago.

And in this case it would require advancements that are "sci fi" worthy.

I do not agree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trust me, me too. I have a hard time accepting the digital enhancements because the wounds seem to be a different shape in every one of them. ...

Pixel pareidolia is what I call it.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Primeau seems pretty certain that it is a young adult's voice:

Maybe there are characteristics only present in the voice for a certain amount of time after the voice breaks, for example, that can be heard even with poor audio.

That's because Primeau believes in "listening with your minds eye" (his words on his youtube video) and states that he uses his "critical listening skills". I'd wager $10,000 that Mr. Primeau's ability to recognize a "young mans voice" would disappear instantly if he had to do double blind tests where he didn't know who was being analyzed and what their age was ahead of time.

 

[Unabogie]

That's because Primeau believes in "listening with your minds eye" (his words on his youtube video) and states that he uses his "critical listening skills". I'd wager $10,000 that Mr. Primeau's ability to recognize a "young mans voice" would disappear instantly if he had to do double blind tests where he didn't know who was being analyzed and what their age was ahead of time.

Well that settles things then. He's been doing this (voice analysis) for 28 years. When did you first decide the field was woo?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I am 50 years old. I became interested in computers when I was in elementary school. When I was in High School I purchased a book on binary code and taught myself binary coding. In college I took COBOL, BASIC, Pascal and RPG. When I was 25 I wrote spreadsheet templates to calculate proforma statements. I went on to become a computer consultant and programmer writing proprietary software solutions specializing in DBMS. I have for decades been interested in AI, and pattern recognition software and systems like Neural Networks. I follow the annual loebner, IJCAI awards. Sorry for the biography but I actually know a little bit about the state of the art. I don't agree with you that the net results of 9 years of advancement is simply incremental. A year, two, sure. 9 years? In 1993 Intel released it's first Pentium processor with a clock speed of 300 MHZ. The Jasper-Forest Intel processor has max clock speed of 3.2 GHZ (I won't go into why raw clock speed isn't the whole story). That's not incremental. I won't bore you with much more but SIRI would very likely not been possible 9 years ago.

I meant to imply that computer advances have moved quite quickly. We'll agree to disagree on whether that applies to voice identification.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

He's been doing this (voice analysis) for 28 years.

Oh well, if he's been doing it for 28 years he has to be right!

When did you first decide the field was woo?

For about the 10th time I don't believe the field is woo, but I have no doubt some of those in the field practice woo by vastly overstating their capabilities and their ability to pronounce something with certainty.

 

[johnny karate]

A doctor who's never seen him is basing his diagnosis on a grainy video that never gives a close up on his nose. I'll tell you, now I am convinced!

Sarcasm directed at doctor, not at you Unabogie.

I certainly agree that the diagnosis of the broken nose is dubious, but doctor or not, he can easily see what we all can regarding the supposed scalp lacerations: Not so much as a bandaid for a wound Zimmerman's lawyer told us was severe enough to require stitches.

 

[SomedayGirl]

Pixel paradelia is what I call it.

I'm with you - the "gash" sometimes looks to me like X marks the spot but it could just as well be Jesus.

And much like a magician's misdirection, all the build up/ slow mo/ giant red circle just in case you missed it causes people not to look at other sequences on the tape. On the ABC "enhanced" segment, the injury is highlighted around the 1:00 mark but start at :40 and stop on :45. Clear view of the back of his head but no dark areas, no gash, not so much as a smudge on the back of Zimmerman's head.

Pixel pareidolia, indeed.

 

[Unabogie]

Oh well, if he's been doing it for 28 years he has to be right!

For about the 10th time I don't believe the field is woo, but I have no doubt some of those in the field practice woo by vastly overstating their capabilities and their ability to pronounce something with certainty.

I wouldn't say he's right because he's been doing this for three decades, but I would say he's proven his qualifications to a huge number of people over the course of 28 years, including courts and adversarial lawyers. Somehow he's managed to pull the wool over their eyes, but not you. NO! You've got him all figured out and you're willing to wager Mitt Romney money on it. And somehow he's suspect in this case because...why again?