Forensic Experts: with ‘Scientific Certainty’ it was not Zimmerman’s voice screaming for help - Polidicks

[quote]As the [URL="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/PEOCVC000188.topic"]Trayvon Martin[/URL] controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot? A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel. [IMG]http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/images/pixel.gif[/IMG] His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help. Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion. Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story. [B]'Scientific certainty' [/B] On a rainy night in late February, a woman called 911 to report someone crying out for help in her gated Sanford community, Retreat at Twin Lakes. Though several of her neighbors eventually called authorities, she phoned early enough for dispatchers to hear the panicked cries and the gunshot that took Trayvon Martin's life. George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, shot Trayvon, anunarmed17-year-old, during a one-on-one confrontation Feb. 26. Before the shot, one of them can be heard screaming for help. [B]Owen, a court-qualified[/b] expert witness and former chief engineer for the [URL="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/0100900157.topic"]New York Public Library[/URL]'s Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis — a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match. After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams. "I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says. The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent. "As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare. Forensic voice identification is not a new or novel concept; in fact, a recent U.S. Department of Justice committee report notes that federal interest in the technology "has a history of nearly 70 years." [IMG]http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/images/pixel.gif[/IMG] [B]In the post 9-11 world, Owen says, voice identification is "the main biometric tool" used to track international criminals, as well as terrorists.[/B] "These people don't leave fingerprints, but they do still need to talk to one another," he says. [B]'The home run' [/B] Though the term "biometric analysis" may sound futuristic, it basically just means using personal characteristics for identification. A fingerprint scanner is an example of a biometric device. Much as the ridges of a human hand produce a fingerprint, each human voice has unique, distinguishable traits, Owen says. "They're all particular to the individual." Another benefit of modern biometric analysis, Owen said, is it doesn't require an "in context" comparison. In other words, Owen didn't need a sample of Zimmerman screaming in order to compare his voice to the call. The technology Owen used to analyze the Zimmerman tape has a wide range of applications, including national security and international policing, he said. A recently as January, Owen used the same technology to identify accused murderer Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago. Owen testified that it was Davalloo, accused of stabbing another woman nine times in a condo in Shippan, Conn., who reported the killing to police from a pay phone in November 2002. Davalloo was convicted, according to news reports. Owen says the audio from Zimmerman's call is much better quality than the 911 call in the Davalloo case. Voice identification experts judge the quality based on a signal-to-noise ratio; in other words, comparing the usable audio in a clip to the environmental noises that make a match difficult. And the call on which the screams are heard is better quality than is necessary, Owen says. "In our world, that's the home run," he says. Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings. He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion. "I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming." Zimmerman's call to authorities minutes before the shooting provides a good standard for comparison, Primeau says, because it captures his voice both at rest and in an agitated state. [B]'CSI' effect[/B] Only one person aliveknows exactly what transpired in the moments immediately before Trayvon was fatally shot: Zimmerman, who has claimed he fired in self-defense. [IMG]http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/images/pixel.gif[/IMG] Zimmerman told policehe was walking back to his SUV aftera brief foot pursuit of Martin, and the teen confronted and attacked him, punching him and slamming his head into the pavement. Arriving police said Zimmerman was bloodied. One officer wrote in a police report that he overheard Zimmerman telling a paramedic, "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me." Angela Corey, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, has yet to decide whether to charge Zimmerman, send the case to a grand jury or decide against charging. [B] If Zimmerman's self-defense claim is tested at trial, legal experts say a forensic identification of the voice in the 911 audio could be key evidence[/B], either in Zimmerman's favor or to his detriment. Still, Maine-based audio enhancement expert Arlo West says that today's juries sometimes seem reluctant to accept evidence that's any less conclusive than what they're used to seeing on television. "I call it the 'CSI' effect," he says, referring to "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," the popular — if not always realistic — forensics-based TV drama. "You get in front of a jury, and they expect a miracle."[/quote] [url]http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty[/url]

There seems to be enough evidence now to have him convicted as far as I'm aware, as well as the so called "Eye Witness" for providing false evidence and perverting the course of Justice. Also didn't the police officers who responded falsify a report by saying that Zimmermans head was bloody and cut, as well as him having a broken nose?

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384382] Also didn't the police officers who responded falsify a report by saying that Zimmermans head was bloody and cut, as well as him having a broken nose?[/QUOTE] Wouldn't be surprised seeing as the local police acted like his defense attorney the entire time. E.g. "Zimmerman is a great, upstanding citizen"

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;35384422]This story has more twists than all of M. Night Shyamalan's movies combined. [sub][sub]Too soon?[/sub][/sub][/QUOTE] The twist is that Zimmerman is Martin from the future wearing a mask shooting his younger self, directed by M. Night Shamylan.

I wonder how accurate that software and how reliable it is to match a recorded voice with a distorted sounds recorded trough a telephone. Edit: [url]http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com[/url] Seems to be supposed to match normal spoken voice to voice.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384382]There seems to be enough evidence now to have him convicted as far as I'm aware, as well as the so called "Eye Witness" for providing false evidence and perverting the course of Justice. Also didn't the police officers who responded falsify a report by saying that Zimmermans head was bloody and cut, as well as him having a broken nose?[/QUOTE]A witness can only be charged and convicted if they intentionally provide a false statement. Witness testimony is typically shaky because of the circumstances and general condition that it occurs in, not to mention many witnesses can be mislead and even convinced that they saw something that never happened simply through clever phrasing and questioning, which is not the fault of the witness but the one questioning them at the time.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384437]The twist is that Zimmerman is Martin from the future wearing a mask shooting his younger self, directed by M. Night Shamylan.[/QUOTE] [img]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lDoEkNgQzYU/TWoinR9ShFI/AAAAAAAAFEQ/YZvRB53kX0c/m+night+shyamalan.jpg[/img] Seriously though, I'm still wondering just why the hell he hasn't been arrested already, considering that the guy would probably get lynched the moment people recognise him. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("dumb reaction image" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Starpluck;35384424]Wouldn't be surprised seeing as the local police acted like his defense attorney the entire time. E.g. "Zimmerman is a great, upstanding citizen"[/QUOTE] Well in that case Zimmerman, the eye witness and the police can all be charged with falsifying evidence, and Zimmerman for murder. One thing that really pisses me off as well is if Zimmerman shot Martin in self defence, why didn'y he just knee cap him? Martin didn't have a gun or a knife so there is no way you can close the distance to do severe bodily harm when a gun is trained on you. [editline]1st April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35384454]A witness can only be charged and convicted if they intentionally provide a false statement. Witness testimony is typically shaky because of the circumstances and general condition that it occurs in, not to mention many witnesses can be mislead and even convinced that they saw something that never happened simply through clever phrasing and questioning, which is not the fault of the witness but the one questioning them at the time.[/QUOTE] True, if anything then the officer who questioned the witness needs to be out of the police force, cause that means he clearly told the witness that Zimmerman was cut up (I think the eye witness said that Zimmerman was all bloody and beat up but the station CCTV shows he's fine)

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384457]Well in that case Zimmerman, the eye witness and the police can all be charged with falsifying evidence, and Zimmerman for murder.[/QUOTE]As I said, witnesses have to intentionally provide a false statement. Simply being wrong or mislead is not their fault. If for some reason the witness did intentionally do so, then yes, they could be charged for obstructing justice. If the officer did falsify his report, then it would be a matter for Internal Affairs to handle.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384457] True, if anything then the officer who questioned the witness needs to be out of the police force, cause that means he clearly told the witness that Zimmerman was cut up (I think the eye witness said that Zimmerman was all bloody and beat up but the station CCTV shows he's fine)[/QUOTE] But he was treated by medics. Page 3. [url]http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf[/url] It states that he was only bleeding from his nose and back of his head. I think this is more reliable than witness statements.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384457]True, if anything then the officer who questioned the witness needs to be out of the police force, cause that means he clearly told the witness that Zimmerman was cut up (I think the eye witness said that Zimmerman was all bloody and beat up but the station CCTV shows he's fine)[/QUOTE]I recall reading a report about how witnesses could be mislead. Several people were shown a scene of a hit-and-run car accident and questioned about what they saw. One such question was phrased "Did you see [B]a[/B] broken tail light?" to a portion of the witnesses, and the others were asked "Did you see [B]the[/B] broken tail light?" Witnesses asked the first question responded negatively the vast majority of the time, while those asked the second question responded positively the vast majority of the time. In both cases, there was no broken tail light, but it demonstrated that witnesses could be mislead and convinced of something that did not happen simply by how a question was phrased.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;35384519]But he was treated by medics. Page 3. [url]http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf[/url] It states that he was only bleeding from his nose and back of his head. I think this is more reliable than witness statements.[/QUOTE] Ah fair enough, I haven't kept up with all the information on this case, I just remember there being a thread saying that the stations CCTV showing he wasn't bleeding or anything when he arrived with the police.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;35384451]I wonder how accurate that software and how reliable it is to match a recorded voice with a distorted sounds recorded trough a telephone. Edit: [url]http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com[/url] Seems to be supposed to match normal spoken voice to voice.[/QUOTE] The technology is obviously designed under such circumstances, despite your claims of it being nothing more then a distorted recording being exaggerated. Forensic experts take all these variables into account. By the way, the link you provided still provides over a 90% match for disguised voices and voices with music in background. Zimmerman's is not even 50%.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35384555]I recall reading a report about how witnesses could be mislead. Several people were shown a scene of a hit-and-run car accident and questioned about what they saw. One such question was phrased "Did you see [B]a[/B] broken tail light?" to a portion of the witnesses, and the others were asked "Did you see [B]the[/B] broken tail light?" Witnesses asked the first question responded negatively the vast majority of the time, while those asked the second question responded positively the vast majority of the time. In both cases, there was no broken tail light, but it demonstrated that witnesses could be mislead and convinced of something that did not happen simply by how a question was phrased.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's pretty ridiculous how just a single word can change an entire witness testimony, it's one of the reasons I tend to only consider stuff that's die haird physical evidence. Insane that even just the tone or inflection used for a statement can make people doubt how absolute their memory is, and even then how flimsy their memory is in the first place is a problem.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;35384580]The technology is obviously designed under process as intended such conditions, despite your claim of it being nothing more then a distorted recorded being exaggerated. Forensic experts take all these variables into account. By the way, the link you provided still provides over a 90% match for disguised voices and voices with music in background. Zimmerman's is not even 50%.[/QUOTE] I'm not exaggerating, perhaps I should have used distorted voices/yells because they really were that. [url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Trayvon_Martin_Shooting_Call3.ogg[/url] Ugh don't know how to [media] it. But yeah. The last "Help" may have been the clearest, probably that they ran the test with. Edit: If we assume all this is correct then Trayvon would be the one shouting for help, and by listening to the recordings, Zimmerman literally executes Trayvon since the shot takes place like 0.5 seconds after the last "help". Creepy.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384382]Also didn't the police officers who responded falsify a report by saying that Zimmermans head was bloody and cut, as well as him having a broken nose?[/QUOTE] Yes they did. I believe [url=http://facepunch.com/threads/1172971]the article,[/url] and [url=http://facepunch.com/threads/1173546]the video that disproved it,[/url] are both around [url=http://facepunch.com/forum.php]here[/url] [url=http://facepunch.com/forums/396]somewhere.[/url] What? Can't I have a little fun?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;35384424]Wouldn't be surprised seeing as the local police acted like his defense attorney the entire time. E.g. "Zimmerman is a great, upstanding citizen"[/QUOTE] I forget the article, but an internal memo was released between the police of how angry they were that the DA was twisting their back on this subject.

What about Martin being a thief, drug dealing gangsta? Who was probably provocative against Zimmerman?

The 1st of April, 2012. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shit post; does not contribute to discussion" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

no shit it wasn't him once I saw that he didn't have any marks or blood on his body, I knew he couldn't of had been beat, that's bullshit. [QUOTE=Bat-shit;35384988]What about Martin being a thief, drug dealing gangsta? Who was probably provocative against Zimmerman?[/QUOTE] yeah because 2 pictures that look "thug like" 100% mean he's automatically a huge thug :downs:

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;35384988]What about Martin being a thief, drug dealing gangsta? Who was probably provocative against Zimmerman?[/QUOTE] Zimmerman should have let the police decide if he was a thief, drug dealing gangsta, not going after him after a fucking hunch as we know he did. Innocent until proven guilty applies retroactively too, Zimmerman went on and denied Martin of a fair trial and decided to take justice on his own hands.

[QUOTE=J!NX;35385114]no shit it wasn't him once I saw that he didn't have any marks or blood on his body, I knew he couldn't of had been beat, that's bullshit. yeah because 2 pictures that look "thug like" 100% mean he's automatically a huge thug :downs:[/QUOTE] Too bad he had been treated by medics and the CCTV camera angle/quality is poor, so still inconclusive.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;35385189]Zimmerman should have let the police decide if he was a thief, drug dealing gangsta, not going after him after a fucking hunch as we know he did. Innocent until proven guilty applies retroactively too, Zimmerman went on and denied Martin of a fair trial and decided to take justice on his own hands.[/QUOTE] Good point. I'm not that good with US law system, but isn't a law like the "stand your ground" one slightly unconstitutional?

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;35385540]Good point. I'm not that good with US law system, but isn't a law like the "stand your ground" one slightly unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]No. [editline]1st April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=G-Strogg;35385540]Good point. I'm not that good with US law system, but isn't a law like the "stand your ground" one slightly unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]Stand your ground says you have the right to defend yourself in a place you're supposed to be. It does not give you the right to chase down a kid in a hoodie and shoot him in the chest.

APRIL FOOLS! [highlight](User was banned for this post ("shit post; does not contribute to discussion" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=King Tiger;35385925]APRIL FOOLS![/QUOTE]Uhh, what?

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384457]One thing that really pisses me off as well is if Zimmerman shot Martin in self defence, why didn'y he just knee cap him? Martin didn't have a gun or a knife so there is no way you can close the distance to do severe bodily harm when a gun is trained on you.[/QUOTE] That's not how it works, this isn't Hitman.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35384457] One thing that really pisses me off as well is if Zimmerman shot Martin in self defence, why didn'y he just knee cap him? Martin didn't have a gun or a knife so there is no way you can close the distance to do severe bodily harm when a gun is trained on you. [/QUOTE] life is not a video game

i love how these threads always have some guy who woulda done it differently in zimmerman's shoes priveleged white suburban teenager here with my logical plan of action for heated situations

[QUOTE=Big Bang;35385189]Zimmerman should have let the police decide if he was a thief, drug dealing gangsta, not going after him after a fucking hunch as we know he did. Innocent until proven guilty applies retroactively too, Zimmerman went on and denied Martin of a fair trial and decided to take justice on his own hands.[/QUOTE] Maybe, or MAYBE Martin went for Zimmerman and his gun?