Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Your post is non-responsive.

It was quite responsive. How illogical of you to think it wasn't.

re·spon·sive/riˈspänsiv/
Adjective:

1. Reacting quickly and positively.
2. Responding readily and with interest or enthusiasm.

I believe my response even met both definitions, I responded quickly and with interest and enthusiasm that you enlightened me about such complex subjects.

Thank you. For those arguing semantics looking for a gotcha.

I certainly hope you aren't being critical of yourself there. As an example, if someone were to politely ask you to state whether you accept that an expert can do what he claims he can do, irregardless of whether a court will or won't allow the testimony, and you were to respond with some simplistic condescending screed that you seem to think is difficult to grasp, that might be an indication of "gotcha".

Then again, on reflection, that's probably less a gotcha reaction than it is a defensive reaction from feeling threatened when you get asked questions you don't like that expose your intellectual obfuscation.

Your premises implicitly assume the conclusion.

Or the premises are correct and therefore lead to the conclusion. One which I might add, was clearly stated as an opinion. But if you'd care to tell us which of these premises is incorrect, I'm all ears:

- A claim being made by one person (as far as I'm aware Owen and Owen alone has made the claim he can do this using this software)
- that is not backed up by current standards in the field (I believe this has been established but enlighten us if it has not)
- that in fact turns them on their head and blows them away (this is clearly a subjective opinion, though one which i think most would share)
- that has not been peer reviewed (the software was released in March, but if you aware of peer reviews and acceptance of this new process and that it's no longer necessary to have a certain number of samples I'd like to read about it)
And here is the opinion.

to be an extraordinary claim? I guess this is where is differ. I find it quite the extraordinary claim.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I did watch the video, and it didn't prompt me to go digging into who Frank was and what he may or may not have done in the past.

I'm not sure what serious problems he has that are relevant.

He's defending Zimmerman and from what I've read he (Frank) sounds like he may be racist, or comes off that way. Therefore it's going to be a great opportunity for people to attempt guilt by association. Same as some are trying to do with TM where I've actually seen people attempting to impugn TM because of something a Facebook or Twitter follower said.

 

[Dan O.]

That wasn't what the Knox threads looked like to me.

The "Cartwheel" thread didn't start until after The first verdict so there was a significant supply of information that needed to be sorted through and there were often a plethora of sub threads going at the same time. It could look quite confusing if you weren't following along.

I had been archiving and cataloging the information as it came out so would regularly ask for citations when something new was presented. The regulars in the thread quickly adjusted to providing the citations by default. The number of links to different factual information about the case probably helped our google ranking. I often found that within minutes of a new quote being posted to the thread, Google already had the quote from the thread in its index.

I have considered creating a similar wiki archive for the Trayvon Martin case. It's a substantial effort for an individual to keep up but would be quite easy as a group project. Would you be interested in contributing if I set something up?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but there are some interesting videos of the Easy Voice Biometrics software in use on youtube. One of the things that is interesting is to look at the videos where they brag (not meant as a negative) about the capabilities of their software to detect attempts to fool the software. Their examples all include multiple samples of identical phrasing, and in the examples it's fairly easy to tell that the voices are the same even with the human ear, and they mainly vary the background noise in the examples while keeping the voice clear using the same phrases.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpgF9-gILPY&feature=g-hist&context=G24c2fe2AHT3yn0QAAAA

The software itself looks very impressive on the surface, it's a shame it can't be downloaded and tested. In my experience a lot of examples put out like this show a product in its best light and it falls apart under real world testing. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it would be an absolute ball to be able to test this and see how accurate it is, how to fool it, under what situations it fails etc.

After watching the video above, I think it even more likely that to claim it can exclude GZ with any degree of certainty is outrageous. But the ability to download and test it would make that easy to ascertain.

 

[Dan O.]

If you are into programming, the toolkit that Easy Voice is probably built from is open source.

There are hints in other material that Mr. Owen did know enough to do proper negative comparisons. But if the software was doing negative comparisons then there should be a positive indicator of the quality of that negative result. I haven't seen that. But then, I don't think that anyone except Mr. Owen has seen enough of this program to say what it can and cannot do.

I am currently somewhat skeptical of this particular software package but don't find it inconceivable that the task is possible.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I am currently somewhat skeptical of this particular software package but don't find it inconceivable that the task is possible.

For me if I were to replace the phrase "somewhat skeptical" with "very skeptical" I certainly agree with the rest. Though I direct my skepticism more at Mr. Owen's claims of what he was able to do with the software than the software itself.

 

[RandFan]

It was quite responsive.

You didn't respond to the substance of my point.

Then again, on reflection, that's probably less a gotcha reaction than it is a defensive reaction from feeling threatened when you get asked questions you don't like that expose your intellectual obfuscation.

I've honestly and sincerely responded to you. If you are going to personalize the discussion then I don't see the point of the discussion.

ETA: Your premises implicitly assume the conclusion. The inability to grasp that alone would make it difficult to have a discussion.

 

[RandFan]

If you are into programming, the toolkit that Easy Voice is probably built from is open source.

There are hints in other material that Mr. Owen did know enough to do proper negative comparisons. But if the software was doing negative comparisons then there should be a positive indicator of the quality of that negative result. I haven't seen that. But then, I don't think that anyone except Mr. Owen has seen enough of this program to say what it can and cannot do.

I am currently somewhat skeptical of this particular software package but don't find it inconceivable that the task is possible.

I'm more skeptical now than I was before. I think GZ's has a reasonable chance of keeping the software out of court based on some of the info I've seen (assuming there is a trial). If there is no trial and if GZ knows he is innocent then I think GZ should sue Owen. I think it is too damaging to him if that is the case.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You didn't respond substantively.

Now you're getting much warmer.

If you are going to personalize the discussion then I don't see the point of the discussion.

^Irony^

ETA: Your premises implicitly assume the conclusion. The inability to grasp that alone would make it difficult to have a discussion.

The above seems to be your standard MO. First state an assertion. Then suggest the other person cannot grasp the assertion, flattering yourself in the process. It's a condescending and insulting technique, but it's not very effective.

 

[RandFan]

George zimmerman's attorneys on CNN right now. Piers Morgan (a man who usually I don't rate) is actually doing a really good job on challenging them. Lots of usual trying to avoid answering the question, changing the subject etc. Not making them look good at all.

Way to go PM

I'm not a big fan of Morgan's but it was a good show. Not like that silly hysterical nonsense of Lawrence O'donnell.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm more skeptical now than I was before. I think GZ's has a reasonable chance of keeping the software out of court based on some of the info I've seen (assuming there is a trial). If there is no trial and if GZ knows he is innocent then I think GZ should sue Owen. I think it is too damaging to him if that is the case.

If we can move beyond insulting each other , I'd be curious to know what increased your skepticism.

 

[RandFan]

The "Cartwheel" thread didn't start until after The first verdict so there was a significant supply of information that needed to be sorted through and there were often a plethora of sub threads going at the same time. It could look quite confusing if you weren't following along.

I had been archiving and cataloging the information as it came out so would regularly ask for citations when something new was presented. The regulars in the thread quickly adjusted to providing the citations by default. The number of links to different factual information about the case probably helped our google ranking. I often found that within minutes of a new quote being posted to the thread, Google already had the quote from the thread in its index.

I have considered creating a similar wiki archive for the Trayvon Martin case. It's a substantial effort for an individual to keep up but would be quite easy as a group project. Would you be interested in contributing if I set something up?

I mostly lurked. It was very hard to keep up at times but it really was an informative thread.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not a big fan of Morgan's but it was a good show. Not like that silly hysterical nonsense of Lawrence O'donnell.

Yeah, other than Morgan's slip up regarding the legality of carrying a gun as a member of the neighborhood watch, it was a good interview.

Zimmerman's lawyers really need to stop giving these interviews because they come across as double-talking hucksters, and are not doing their client any favors.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, other than Morgan's slip up regarding the legality of carrying a gun as a member of the neighborhood watch, it was a good interview.

Zimmerman's lawyers really need to stop giving these interviews because they come across as double-talking hucksters, and are not doing their client any favors.

Agreed.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Below is a link to most of the interview with Piers Morgan and GZ attorney's. I don't think the attorney's did a lot of harm to their case but I don't think they did much good either. I was very surprised by the way the younger guy kept saying "when this goes to court" as if his client is going to be charged. He did that several times and then would catch himself and say "if it goes to court".

In my opinion if one of them is going to go on TV it should be the older guy on the bottom and not both of them. I do understand their need to try and get their side of the story out there from a PR standpoint, but they have two huge challenges:

1. They can't give out any information that proves their version of events whereas the TM attorney's can say pretty much anything they want.

2. The story as presented by the TM attorney's has been told for weeks on end to the point that it is the "official version". That's hard to over come. Normally it's much different and the police have the advantage and come out and tell a story. But in this case the police remained silent and never explained their decisions.


I consider this merely an analysis of the way it is, but I'm sure some will see it as being "pro GZ" or "anti-TM".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5d4gtzrNE

 

[Dancing David]

Yes... and? It's information about the events of that evening we are receiving from the man Zimmerman paid to be his advocate. That information is contradicted by what we see on the video tape (i.e. the lack of a bandage for a laceration we were told required stitches). That puts Zimmerman's entire narrative in question.



Zimmerman's lawyer described the wound as "serious enough" to need stitches. Obviously, the wound is on his head. But if you object to the term "serious head wound", I'll retract it and no longer use it.

Regardless, the description given regarding the nature of Zimmerman's supposed scalp laceration is not in any way substantiated by what we see on the video.

Considering that GZ's lawyer is grandstanding, and not bound by the truth outside of a courtroom, I would consider it lawyering and not evidence.

And did the wound get stitches later, we don't know.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

I was very surprised by the way the younger guy kept saying "when this goes to court" as if his client is going to be charged. He did that several times and then would catch himself and say "if it goes to court".

Is it possible that Mr. Zimmerman is in the unenviable position of having lawyers that WANT his case to go to court?

 

[Dan O.]

SYG is an interesting factor. If the state tries to prosecute and looses then the state has to pay the defendants attorney fees. But this only happens if SYG applies. Who decides? Is this a question put to the jury or does simply the claim by the defense make it so?

 

[crimresearch]

Considering that GZ's lawyer is grandstanding, and not bound by the truth outside of a courtroom, I would consider it lawyering and not evidence.

And did the wound get stitches later, we don't know.

+1 twice.

 

[AlBell]

That makes no sense at all. If a DNA test rules out a match between two samples do you think that is indistinguishable from the result if the system doesn't work at all?

An unfair analogy in that DNA has been scientifically justified in courts to have scientific merit.

I've got no strong opinion either way as to whether this voice analysis business is sound science or not, by the way.

IMO voice analysis is sound science. What isn't sound science to our knowledge is the merit of the technique used, data collection techniques and probable accuracy of that data (high frequency losses and noise may or may not be key here), and chain-of-custody.

I too would like to see a positive result from the technique proposed here in double blind studies prior to admissibility discussion.