Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

Do you think this report is science or woo ?

If Science, can you please point out the actual science ?

All I see are some dudes opinion. And a bunch of claims that GZ said things no one else has "heard" him saying.

I guess you missed the actual report.

http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/201...ce-Communication-Associaites-voice-report.pdf

Is it your position that your personal incredulity is a substitute for a critique of these experts and their methods? Because I don't find that very persuasive. I think much more telling is that once O'Mara got a look at this finding he went and asked his own experts to rebut them and they refused to do it. If he had an expert lined up to say it was George screaming he'd be touting that from the hilltops and you know it. So he's left sputtering about how there should be NO EXPERTS at all.

It's hilarious.

 

[batvette]

snipped for brevity

The CTH uncovered the police scandal? I don't think they can claim credit for that. TM had a backpack with jewelry and a screwdriver. Where is the evidence that he was actually involved in a burglary. There is obviously more to this than is being told, but again, it has not one damn thing to do with GZ shooting and killing TM that night.

Why would a 17 year old boy have women's jewelry, including silver wedding rings and diamond earrings? If it were his and obtained legally wouldn't he and his family have retrieved it from police?
The police determined that screwdriver was a burglary tool. Do you think they are new at this?

This is the ultimate in denial.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Do you think this report is science or woo ?

There can be no doubt which it is.

Religious proclamations? This is just judicial EVP. No self-respecting skeptic will disagree with me on that.

 

[Noztradamus]

That has not been established as fact, we have an eyewitness who will testify he appeared to be on drugs and looking at houses.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

 

[Megalodon]

There is actual evidence for the burglary, unlike the alleged rape.

There is evidence for the rape, if you consider that testimony is evidence. There's circumstantial evidence for a burglary, but no direct evidence, like a testimony or a surveillance tape. Maybe if we questioned TM...

oh, wait...

 

[batvette]

Furthermore, we can rule out this speculation that Martin looked like he was "on drugs" since they did a toxicology test and determined that he was most certainly NOT on drugs when George murdered him. That batvette persists in granting George's observations any credit even in light of his erroneous "suspicions" is a mystery.

But this ground is well trodden. We've already established quite clearly that when it comes to George's history of assaulting LEOs, assaulting his girlfriend, raping his cousin over the course of a decade, or bragging about getting away with crimes, the standard is quite high and that without going to court we must dismiss it all as the most heinous of character assassination. Indeed, we must even doubt the word of the police who arrested George after he attacked that cop, since cops lie.

But in the case of the mysterious jewelry, we must assume the worst about the murder victim, assign the utmost credibility to the police, and the highest monetary value to the found jewelry, and conclude that this makes the victim not only suspect, but certainly a master burglar (which somehow translates into him being ultra-violent and capable of handling a grown man who outweighed him by 50 pounds). We must discount the fact that the victim had NO jewelry on him and NO burglary tools and was wearing bright clothing at the time he was murdered and was talking on the phone with a girl at the same time as he was allegedly planning his attack.

Dismissing your cartoon like distortions, can you explain why Martin had a dozen pieces of women's jewelry, including silver wedding rings and diamond earrings? If police took your jewelry wouldn't you try to get it back? Why didn't Martin and his parents go to the police and get his diamond earrings and his wife's wedding ring back?

And let us never forget that the word of the accused murdered must be taken as TRUTH since no defendant ever told self-serving lies before.

What crime was Zimmerman accused of at the time he called police and described that Martin appeared to be on drugs and looking at houses? What motivation did he have at that time to lie? So he thought he'd misrepresent Martin's behavior, then call police to get them to come out and find out he was calling in false crime reports- something he had never done in a year and 47 calls before?
What conceivable sense does this make?

 

[KatieG]

Details of recent motions filed. It will be interesting to see show Judge Nelson handles these.

http://www.baynews9.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2013/5/13/zimmerman_attorneys_.html

 

[boooeee]

I guess you missed the actual report.

http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/201...ce-Communication-Associaites-voice-report.pdf

Is it your position that your personal incredulity is a substitute for a critique of these experts and their methods? Because I don't find that very persuasive. I think much more telling is that once O'Mara got a look at this finding he went and asked his own experts to rebut them and they refused to do it. If he had an expert lined up to say it was George screaming he'd be touting that from the hilltops and you know it. So he's left sputtering about how there should be NO EXPERTS at all.

It's hilarious.

Here is the Conclusion from the report:

Based on the many analyses carried out, the undersigned had to conclude that, while there is evidence to suggest that Mr. Martin made the first two calls/cries (Nos.1 and 8) and that Mr. Zimmerman made those identified as 14 and 16, none of these conclusions reached the criterion for a match. Neither speaker could be identified as being responsible for the others.

Do you think that conclusion supports your statement that the screams were most likely Trayvon's? I take the report as evidence that the data simply isn't sufficient to determine the identify of the screamer (or screamers, I suppose). Which is consistent with what the FBI expert said last year.

So, we're left with Alan Reich's report. What are your thoughts on his conclusions? I'm not a voice expert, but some of the conclusions he draws in the report are rather, odd.

 

[KatieG]

Why would a 17 year old boy have women's jewelry, including silver wedding rings and diamond earrings? If it were his and obtained legally wouldn't he and his family have retrieved it from police?
The police determined that screwdriver was a burglary tool. Do you think they are new at this?

This is the ultimate in denial.

I asked if you had any evidence TM was the actual burglar. Apparently you don't so I'll bear that in mind the next time you assert something without evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I guess you missed the actual report.

http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/201...ce-Communication-Associaites-voice-report.pdf

Is it your position that your personal incredulity is a substitute for a critique of these experts and their methods? Because I don't find that very persuasive. I think much more telling is that once O'Mara got a look at this finding he went and asked his own experts to rebut them and they refused to do it. If he had an expert lined up to say it was George screaming he'd be touting that from the hilltops and you know it. So he's left sputtering about how there should be NO EXPERTS at all.

It's hilarious.

I have looked at both report.

Let me make myself more clear.

You wrote this:

The screams were most likely Trayvon's.

And you quoted an OS article that said:

One team of analysts, Harry Hollien and James Harnsberger of Forensic Communication Associates, broke down the recording scream by scream. They concluded the 911-audio quality and voice samples were not good enough to definitively match either Trayvon or Zimmerman....
In a separate evaluation, analyst Alan Reich wrote that, while two voices are heard in the audio, he believed the cries came from "the younger of the two male speakers, Trayvon Martin."http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...immerman-trial-voice-20130514,0,2122283.story

So if you believe the screams were TM, that conclusion could only have come from the second report.

So, it is regarding this second report that my questions are referring to:

Do you think this report is science or woo ?
If Science, can you please point out the actual science ?
All I see are some dudes opinion. And a bunch of claims that GZ said things no one else has "heard" him saying.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You don't consider the testimony of the rape victim to be evidence of rape?

You don't consider testimony of a self -defense to be evidence of self-defense ?

 

[Cylinder]

I guess you missed the actual report.

http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/201...ce-Communication-Associaites-voice-report.pdf

Is it your position that your personal incredulity is a substitute for a critique of these experts and their methods? Because I don't find that very persuasive. I think much more telling is that once O'Mara got a look at this finding he went and asked his own experts to rebut them and they refused to do it. If he had an expert lined up to say it was George screaming he'd be touting that from the hilltops and you know it. So he's left sputtering about how there should be NO EXPERTS at all.

It's hilarious.

The part of your argumemt that is fabricated is where you assert that "once O'Mara got a look at this finding he went and asked his own experts to rebut them and they refused to do it." To be clear, that assertion has no rational basis in truth.

There are two reports. One is inconclusive and admits that the methodology used was not accepted and prone to error. The other is base, pseudoscience claptrap disguised as expert opinion.

Reich makes some curious claims in his report. Apparently his "critical listening skills" are able to discriminate no less than three simultaneous voices, some distant, some nearer to the recording device to the degree that he can identify to a reasonable scientific certainty the speakers. As a bonus he can also do with without specific word exemplars. Being a clinical psycologist, Reich presents the added bonus of being able to attribute meaning to the words. It's dogma dress as science and only true beleivers and scientifically-gullible need apply.

"[R]eminicent of an evangelical preacher or carnival barker..."

That - and those arguments potraying this as science - is what is laughable.

To address your previous claim that this criticism is based in personal incredulity - those who have actually taken time to inform their opinions by reading the source material understand that the state has already consulted a pushished and respected authority on forensic audio and voice recognition, Dr. Hirotake Nakasone. His conclusion:

Critical listening and digital signal analyses further revealad that the screaming voice on the 911 call is of insufficient voice quality and duration to conduct meaningful voice comparison with any otherr voice samples primarily due to the screaming voice being: (1) produced under an extreme emotional state, (2) limited in the number of words and phrases uttered, (3) superimposed by other voices most of the time, and (4) distant, reverberant and very low signal level.

Even one of Reich's contemperary, the snake-oil salesman Dr. Owen, claims that Reich's methodology is garbage. This was discussed at legth much earlier in the thread.

The asserion that a challenge of methodology is some kind of shelter for desperation is simply a promotion ignorance and anti-science. Empirical science is repeatable. If Reich can do what he claims, he can easily demonstrate his methodology to the court and his community. Empirical science is falsifiable. Reich can easily demonstrate what would constitute a non-identification and what exact data identifies these samples.

 

[Unabogie]

That seems like a pretty egregious misrepresentation.

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/RKT7q9l.png[/qimg]

In what I presume are the final screams before the gunshot (due to their assigned numbers) these particular PhDs felt that they were almost certainly from Zimmerman, and definitely NOT from Martin.

Frankly, I think the whole enterprise of trying to compare screams to speech is sort of pointless, but let's at least accurately represent what is said by those who try.

You can presume whatever you like, but I'd go by the reactions from the two camps. The existence of this recording has been known since the time of the murder, and yet O'Mara does not have an audio expert willing to testify and in fact, he's trying to have all experts precluded from testifying at all. If this recording or this report helped him, he'd be giddy with delight and would try and make this expert a defense witness. That he's trying to stop him from even being there speaks volumes.

But clearly there are two voices heard on the recording: one from the victim and one from the murderer. The voices heard from the victim appear to be the screams, while the murderer is heard saying something else. We can hang tight on this, though, since there's no way O'Mara keeps this out of court and the explanation for why George is pooping his pants over this tape will become clear enough for everyone in just a month or so.

 

[Unabogie]

Dismissing your cartoon like distortions, can you explain why Martin had a dozen pieces of women's jewelry, including silver wedding rings and diamond earrings? If police took your jewelry wouldn't you try to get it back? Why didn't Martin and his parents go to the police and get his diamond earrings and his wife's wedding ring back?

We'll never know, since George murdered him. He can't defend himself and it has no bearing on how and why George came to shoot an unarmed teenager. It's just an attempt to smear the victim of a crime. We don't know, as I pointed out to you before, how valuable these items were. You can buy a silver ring for $8 dollars and I don't see any evidence that the earrings were even real diamonds. And as Elvis loves to point out, police lie all the time. Which is why we can't accept that George assaulted a police officer, told him "**** you", and shoved him into a wall even after being shown a badge. Somehow this notion of "due process" and being innocent until proven guilty goes out the window when it comes to Trayvon, and we can deduce a full personal history based on a sketchy police report that hasn't even been authenticated in court or the officer cross examined. It's the double standard that I find so fascinating.

What crime was Zimmerman accused of at the time he called police and described that Martin appeared to be on drugs and looking at houses?

Who said this? I said that he's told self-serving lies. The fact that before he committed the murder he thought Trayvon was on drugs when he wasn't isn't a lie, it's evidence of faulty cognitive skills and a bias against young black teens.

What motivation did he have at that time to lie? So he thought he'd misrepresent Martin's behavior, then call police to get them to come out and find out he was calling in false crime reports- something he had never done in a year and 47 calls before?
What conceivable sense does this make?

No, I think like most racists, he just assumed that the unarmed black teenager was a criminal. In case you don't know this, he liked to make the vast majority of those 47 calls about black people.

Or as his racist brother said, "they mightB risky".

 

[Dan O.]

The police determined that screwdriver was a burglary tool. Do you think they are new at this?

The Florida supreme court has ruled that mere possession of common household items does not count unless there is demonstrated intent to commit a crime. Cops often make that mistake.

 

[johnny karate]

How would you know, since you admitted you didn't even read the affidavits I linked to ?

How do I know that somewhere hidden in the numerous links you posted is the evidence that proves the jewelry found in Martin's possession was from a recent burglary?

Call it hunch.

Usually, a link dump is a sign of weak argumentation. People that have actual evidence simply post it. They don't post a bunch of links and expect others to wade through them. That's the kind of stuff you tend to see in the 9/11 Conspiracy forum.

But feel free to prove me wrong. Post the actual evidence that proves the jewelry found in Martin's possession was from a burglary.

Then why did the judge ruled for MOM motion to inspect and photograph the stolen jewelry ?

Since there was some recent confusion over the difference between sanctions and reimbursement, I can understand the confusion over the difference between granting a motion and allowing something to be admitted into evidence.

Suffice it to say, the two are not even remotely the same thing.

No, because it's not even close to an analogous situation.

Of course it is. We are discussing the standard of evidence as pertains to the determination of guilt.

Apparently, you think Zimmerman should be afforded a higher standard than Martin for the crimes of which each is accused. I am merely pointing put that glaring double standard.

It's a legal process which doesn't preclude someone actually being guilty whether a particular process is followed or not.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making. Are we talking about some unknowable, definitive condition of guilt? Because that's just silly, and certainly doesn't apply to this discussion.

None of us can ever know if someone accused of a crime is definitively guilty. So why even bring it up?

What we have in civilized society is a system of law for determing guilt the best way possible.

And no matter how much you or The Conservative Treehouse desperately wishes to assert Martin's guilt, the standards by which we as a civilized society collectively agree to determine guilt have not been met.

No matter where they come from, the facts are the facts.

I agree.

And here are some facts for you:

Fact #1: It cannot be proven that the jewelry found in Martin's possession was even stolen, let alone obtained in a burglary.

Fact#2: None of this character-assassinating speculation will see the inside of a court room.

You'll understand if I don't find your legal rulings compelling.

I didn't make a legal ruling. I just familiarized myself with the law. Accused murders don't get to drag the names of their victims through the mud to somehow mitigate their own guilt.

There is actual evidence for the burglary, unlike the alleged rape.

That's actually the opposite of true.

There is no evidence of a burglary. There isn't even evidence the jewelry was stolen. What there is is an assumption based on a lack of alternative explanations. But that's not evidence.

However, there is evidence that Zimmerman repeatedly sexually assaulted his underage cousin. And that evidence is of course the statement of the victim.

 

[johnny karate]

What video shows him walking through the complex?
What EYEwitness exists that can testify he was not acting suspiciously?
How does a phone record prove anything other than he was on the phone?

Witesses, video, and the items found on his person prove Martin went to the store.

Zimmerman's own NEN call establishes Martin was walking.

Martin's location and the direction he was heading prove he was on his way home.

Phone records prove he was on the phone at the time, and with whom he was speaking.

All of this is corroborative evidence that Martin was walking home from the store and talking on the phone to his friend.

There exists no evidence to contradict any of this.

By the way:

What EYEwitness exists that can testify he was not acting suspiciously?

That this was posted on the James Randi skeptic's forum gave me the lulz.

I'll get right on proving Martin wasn't acting suspiciously as soon as you prove Zimmerman didn't rape his cousin or that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

At the time Zimmerman reported his behavior he was an independent witness. It wasn't made up afterwards after he was charged with murder. It's in the call record.

It's not an issue of honesty, it's an issue of judgement. And history and even recent events indicate Zimmerman's judgement is rather poor.

Thus the grounds for your argument are false and dismissed.

I'm crushed at your dismissal.

But unfortunately, reality doesn't care if you dismiss it.

The reality is that there is no evidence to substantiate Zimmerman's claim that Martin was somehow behaving suspiciously.

And that reality remains a reality no matter how hard you try to dismiss it.

 

[12AX7]

Why would a 17 year old boy have women's jewelry, including silver wedding rings and diamond earrings? If it were his and obtained legally wouldn't he and his family have retrieved it from police?
The police determined that screwdriver was a burglary tool. Do you think they are new at this?

This is the ultimate in denial.

Was Trayvon involved in an act of burglary when he was shot and killed as he was walking home from the store?

 

[This is The End]

There is actual evidence for the burglary, unlike the alleged rape.

You don't consider the testimony of the rape victim to be evidence of rape?

No, they clearly don't.

But can you guess if they would accept it as evidence if that exact same woman said "I saw Trayvon Martin burgle my jewels."??

 

[batvette]

I asked if you had any evidence TM was the actual burglar. Apparently you don't so I'll bear that in mind the next time you assert something without evidence.

If someone is on trial for burglary, is possession of property reported missing in the crime to be considered by the jury to be evidence of guilt? Of course it is. How many times must this be mentioned? Possession of stolen property is a crime in and of itself and is considered a second burglary related offense for someone with a prior conviction.