The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

[Unabogie]

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-fl...ce/-/14266478/20184176/-/1s5laqz/-/index.html

George Zimmerman's defense confirmed to WESH 2 that they will move forward with a new motion to delay his upcoming murder trial.

Do you have any evidence of panic mode?

No, but TheL8Elvis does.

 

[Unabogie]

Here's a direct link to Reich's report.

http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/20140688/data/1/-/kira45/-/Alan-Reich-voice-report.pdf

Pretty interesting stuff and you can tell why this is scaring the bejeebus out of O'Mara.

ETA: He says that the final word before the shot was "STOP" and not "HELP" and that the person uttering that word was Trayvon Martin.

 

[This is The End]

LOL that people here on a critical thinking board are jumping on the voice expert snake oil. Might as well have Sylvia Browne testify, she'd be just as credible.

Just to be clear, voice analysis and comparison is a very real and very scientific field. It is a part of general audio analysis and comparison.

The existence of a woo branch does not mean that the entire field is woo.

 

[tsig]

Just to be clear, voice analysis and comparison is a very real and very scientific field. It is a part of general audio analysis and comparison.

The existence of a woo branch does not mean that the entire field is woo.

That sounds a lot like "Lots of psychics are fake but my guru is true".

 

[BenBurch]

My sense of this is that there is a circumstantial case based on the power imbalance that might sway a jury, but the evidence is insufficient to say what actually happened.

 

[This is The End]

That sounds a lot like "Lots of psychics are fake but my guru is true".

No it doesn't. Not at all.

It would be more like saying "all brain science is fake because there are psychics".

 

[Alt+F4]

Just to be clear, voice analysis and comparison is a very real and very scientific field.

Nonsense, it's entirely subjective. It's no more scientific than bite-mark analysis which has been entirely debunked as evidence in a criminal trial.

 

[KatieG]

Nonsense, it's entirely subjective. It's no more scientific than bite-mark analysis which has been entirely debunked as evidence in a criminal trial.

I think it's a work in progress but I don't think it should be used in this case. I think the NEN call will stand on it's own and I trust the jurors to make the right decision.

 

[Cylinder]

For those who are interested, here's a summary of the motions filed (so far) for hearing on May 28:

State's Motion in Limine as to Appropriate Penalty or Disregard of Law - The state is seeking to prohibit testimony by witnesses or statements by attorneys regarding the appropriate penalty for Zimmerman or suggesting that the law be disregarded.

State's Motion in Limine Regarding Self Serving Hearsay Statements of Defendant - The state is seeking to limit self-serving hearsay statements without proper foundation (i.e. Zimmerman testifying to them.)

State's Motion in Limine Regarding Defendant's Prior Criminal History - The state is seeking to prohibit testimony regarding Zimmerman's lack of previous felony convictions.

State's Motion to Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence - The state is seeking to prohibit statements or testimony regarding the propriety of Zimmerman's charges or his guilt by family or law enforcement.

State's Motion in Limine Regarding Trayvon Martin - The state is seeking to prohibit testimony regarding Trayvon Martin being suspended, having ever been in a fight, use of marijuana, any social media names or content, ever wearing fake gold teeth, performance in school, text messages before Feb. 26 and text messages on Feb. 26 that are not relevant.

State's Motion for Protective Order/Order in Limine Regarding Toxicology Reports - The state is seeking to prohibit testimony or statements from witnesses regarding Martin's toxicology report.

State's Motion Asking the Court to Order Defendant to Comply with their Discovery Obligations - The state is complaining that Zimmerman has not released all of the witness materials they have collected.

State's Motion to Compel Shellie Zimmerman to Testify at Deposition - The state is seeking an order from the court limiting Shellie Zimmerman's right to invoke Fifth Amendment protections at deposition, citing the qualified immunity for deposition testimony.

Defendant's Motion for Anonymous Jury - Zimmerman is seeking a sequestered venire and jury, that jurors name remain protected by the court and an order prohibiting media members from photographing or interviewing jurors or revealing any information about their residence or location during trial.

Motion to Allow Jury to Inspect Incident Scene - Zimmerman is asking the court to allow the jury to inspect the area of the shooting during trial.

Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony - Zimmerman is asking for an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of voice recognition testimony. The state has filed a response asserting that a hearing is not appropriate. Zimmerman has filed motions asking to add expert witnesses to their list for this hearing and to allow these witnesses to testify via video conference.

 

[KatieG]

Thanks again, Cylinder.

 

[WildCat]

Just to be clear, voice analysis and comparison is a very real and very scientific field. It is a part of general audio analysis and comparison.

The existence of a woo branch does not mean that the entire field is woo.

This isn't voice analysis, this is analysis of a distant scream poorly recorded via telephone line in a highly compressed (lossy) format.

Any "expert" who claims to be able to analyze such a scream and tie it to or exclude a specific person is no less of a fraud than Sylvia Browne and has no business testifying in a court of law.

 

[Unabogie]

If it were so easy to find an expert who would "hear" whatever you paid him to "hear", then why doesn't Mark O'Mara have someone to take his side of things? So far all I see is an audio expert who has testified and written papers on this subject for something like 40 years vs. some anonymous internet posters who have a vested interest in their guy getting off. I've seen nothing but personal incredulity substituting for scientific critiques.

It should be noted that the same people who think that an audio expert could not POSSIBLY rule out Zimmerman as the source of the screams are the same people who've concocted a conspiracy theory around Tracy Martin's inability to recognize the source of the scream when he first heard it. Somehow Alan Reich cannot possibly render an opinion based on audio analysis, but a layperson should be held to his initial impression in non-clinical circumstances.

 

[boooeee]

Here's a direct link to Reich's report.

http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/20140688/data/1/-/kira45/-/Alan-Reich-voice-report.pdf

Pretty interesting stuff and you can tell why this is scaring the bejeebus out of O'Mara.

ETA: He says that the final word before the shot was "STOP" and not "HELP" and that the person uttering that word was Trayvon Martin.

Alan Reich makes some interesting claims in that report. Cylinder quoted this already, but I will requote:

For example, approximately one second after the start of CALL3, Mr. Zimmerman makes a seemingly religious proclamation, "These shall be". His speech is characterized by the low pitch and exaggerated pitch contour reminiscent of an evangelical preacher or a carnival barker.

Here is a recording of the call:


As best I can tell, the "These shall be" that Reich claims to hear takes place at 0:50 on the video (right at the beginning of the call). And I can see why he think that might be what is said. The odd thing is that, although I am not a voice expert, the person speaking "These shall be", or whatever it is, seems to be much closer to the phone than the person screaming.

In addition, the woman making the 911 call keeps talking to somebody named "Jeremy", who is in the house with her (I'm guessing either husband or son). You can hear him speaking several times during the call, but it is usually unintelligible (1:24, for example).

The voice seems to roughly match the "These shall be" utterance. In Reich's 4 page report, he doesn't even mention the existence of a third male speaker on the call. Like I said, I am not a voice expert, but Mr. Reich's analysis seems very suspect.

He also mentions that the two males are "engaged in a loud, purposeful, mostly 'turn-taking' dialogue". I have no idea where he is hearing anything resembling a turn-taking dialogue.

 

[Unabogie]

Alan Reich makes some interesting claims in that report. Cylinder quoted this already, but I will requote:




Here is a recording of the call:


As best I can tell, the "These shall be" that Reich claims to hear takes place at 0:50 on the video (right at the beginning of the call). And I can see why he think that might be what is said. The odd thing is that, although I am not a voice expert, the person speaking "These shall be", or whatever it is, seems to be much closer to the phone than the person screaming.

In addition, the woman making the 911 call keeps talking to somebody named "Jeremy", who is in the house with her (I'm guessing either husband or son). You can hear him speaking several times during the call, but it is usually unintelligible (1:24, for example).

The voice seems to roughly match the "These shall be" utterance. In Reich's 4 page report, he doesn't even mention the existence of a third male speaker on the call. Like I said, I am not a voice expert, but Mr. Reich's analysis seems very suspect.

He also mentions that the two males are "engaged in a loud, purposeful, mostly 'turn-taking' dialogue". I have no idea where he is hearing anything resembling a turn-taking dialogue.

If you read his report he's using an enhanced version of the recording, likely with certain frequencies muted out and other areas amplified. We'll hear his version at the trial, and it's likely that O'Mara has heard this as well which explains why O'Mara has decided that he can't counter this with his own expert.

 

[johnny karate]

If it were so easy to find an expert who would "hear" whatever you paid him to "hear", then why doesn't Mark O'Mara have someone to take his side of things?

However it goes with the voice analysis, it's not going to be a winning issue for the defense. It seems the best they can hope for is to establish that it cannot be determined who is screaming on the recording, and thus they lose an important piece of corroborative evidence.

 

[WildCat]

However it goes with the voice analysis, it's not going to be a winning issue for the defense. It seems the best they can hope for is to establish that it cannot be determined who is screaming on the recording, and thus they lose an important piece of corroborative evidence.

Except, of course, for the eyewitness who says it was Zimmerman screaming.

Good luck using a quack voice "expert" to refute that.

 

[Cylinder]

I've seen nothing but personal incredulity substituting for scientific critiques.

To repeat my earlier post:

As expected, the samples on the 9-I l evidence recording were not at all suitable for ordinary speaker identification analyses.

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.

Those are the state's experts and do not include my personal incredulity. The rest seems to fall under the catagory of "non-trial stuff".

 

[This is The End]

Nonsense, it's entirely subjective. It's no more scientific than bite-mark analysis which has been entirely debunked as evidence in a criminal trial.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't clear. I apologize.

I'm not talking about the experts in this case. I'm not even talking about it being used in trials.

I'm just saying that voice analysis is a very real scientific field.

What it is used for should not dilute that fact.

People comparing the entire field to woo just because it has been used as woo is asinine.

Is the voice recognition on your smartphone woo? (Please don't answer if you have a crappy smartphone!)

 

[This is The End]

I can't see how that information could possibly be recovered now.

Agreed. If the State can tie something solid together we will all be surprised. As will Zimmerman.

 

[This is The End]

This isn't voice analysis, this is analysis of a distant scream poorly recorded via telephone line in a highly compressed (lossy) format.

Any "expert" who claims to be able to analyze such a scream and tie it to or exclude a specific person is no less of a fraud than Sylvia Browne and has no business testifying in a court of law.

Thanks for making that clear.

I couldn't tell if your first post was disparaging just the uses of it in this case, or the entire field.

I would agree with you currently. But I would have to assume that the data is possibly there. In other words, that in the future (far future?) we might have the tech to analyze such a recording properly.

But I agree that it has been shown that such judgements with current tech are iffy at best and probably illegal at worst.