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

[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] Thats what watch is supposed to do, not arm yourself and become a vigilante. When my dad was a cop he had many calls with them and most of the time he went out there and either arrest them for trespassing or just let them go.

How solid are these forensics? Could the defense just claim bullshit?

[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;35386067]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] The situation does not affect his responsibility. Speculating what he should have done is quite useless, but wheter his actions were justified or not still needs to be determined.

[QUOTE=Sand;35385422]Too bad he had been treated by medics and the CCTV camera angle/quality is poor, so still inconclusive.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between a CCTV camera having poor quality and a CCTV camera not showing any blood on the back of his head, nor any grass stains on his jacket, despite Zimmerman claiming otherwise.

[QUOTE=Last or First;35386586]There's a difference between a CCTV camera having poor quality and a CCTV camera not showing any blood on the back of his head, nor any grass stains on his jacket, despite Zimmerman claiming otherwise.[/QUOTE] If he was treated by medics then it stands to reason that there wouldn't be much blood on him.

Bad title, it's a single forensic expert and he said "with reasonable scientific certainty."

[QUOTE=MBB;35386663]"with reasonable scientific certainty."[/QUOTE] And this is bad... [I]how?[/I] Seriously, how is "reasonable scientific certainty" not good enough for you What do you want, some CSI-style "zoom in to that screw: enhance reflection: uncrop: zoom in on that water droplet: enhance reflection" shit?

[QUOTE=Master X;35386632]If he was treated by medics then it stands to reason that there wouldn't be much blood on him.[/QUOTE]Last I checked, Paramedics do not do your laundry for you to get your blood and grass stains out.

[QUOTE=Last or First;35386895]And this is bad... [I]how?[/I] Seriously, how is "reasonable scientific certainty" not good enough for you What do you want, some CSI-style "zoom in to that screw: enhance reflection: uncrop: zoom in on that water droplet: enhance reflection" shit?[/QUOTE] I'm just saying the title wasn't telling the whole story

[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] I'm wondering about the accuracy of this test too. Their results were "it's a fifty-fifty shot that the guy yelling was person A and we can't test for whether or not it was person B," that's not something I would consider concrete.

I would like to hear Martin's voice analyzed as well. There has to be a sample of his voice around somewhere. Did he have an XBox? Did he send any audio messages to anyone? What about videos of him speaking? There has literally got to be something out there.

[QUOTE=MBB;35386663]Bad title, it's a single forensic expert and he said "with reasonable scientific certainty."[/QUOTE] [quote]Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library'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.[/quote] [quote]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."[/quote] Bad reading, there are two.

[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. 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] Here we assume Zimmermann's story is true, which may or may not be so. Big scary guy is on top of you smashing head into pavement. Do you [I]really[/I] put thought into how [I]not[/I] to hurt him too badly?

[QUOTE=cccritical;35388312]I'm wondering about the accuracy of this test too. Their results were "it's a fifty-fifty shot that the guy yelling was person A and we can't test for whether or not it was person B," that's not something I would consider concrete.[/QUOTE] They aren't saying it was Martin who screamed for help. They're saying that it was very unlikely to be Zimmerman to be screaming for help.

Maybe Martin just accidentally pressed the E key. It happens all the time in TF2.

[QUOTE=cccritical;35388312]I'm wondering about the accuracy of this test too. Their results were "it's a fifty-fifty shot that the guy yelling was person A and we can't test for whether or not it was person B," that's not something I would consider concrete.[/QUOTE] I don't think they're saying it's a fifty-fifty chance it's him, I think it just means that his voice matched 50% of the qualities they tested. In other words, there's no chance it's him because it didn't match up well enough.

[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] Then Zimmerman pulls a "Kyle Reese", travels back in time to father himself so he can kill his past, future self-child and cause a continuous resonance cascade that opens a quantum-entagled wormhole that enables his cerebral form to return to its plasma-embedded physio-psychological pandemonium but his non-cerebral form remained and is revealed to be Zimmerman, who's out for revenge because he couldn't return to his own dimension and now killed Martin, who was his past self and child but Zimmerman's cerebral form returned as a Martin Assasin Cyborg who kills Zimmerman but before he can do it a pocket in time suck the both of them into a parallel dimension where Zimmerman and Martin are unrelated and Zimmerman just killed Martin for undisclosed reasons[/needlessexaggeration] Wait, what?

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;35386394]Maybe, or MAYBE Martin went for Zimmerman and his gun?[/QUOTE] Is there any evidence attesting to that? Zimmerman SAID he was going after him. Zimmerman TESTIFIED he went after him. Where testimonies divert is what happened after Zimmerman approached Martin. This results in two cases. 1) Zimmerman attacked Martin, which resulted in the scuffle on the ground as one party was trying to subdue the other. Zimmerman, seeing no other way out, drew his gun, and shot Martin to death. Zimmerman is guilty for voluntary manslaughter in a best case scenario 2) Martin attacked Zimmerman, ending with the same scenario, resulting in a legal self defense case. The problem here lies on the following, who's actually defending itself? Martin is fighting against a man who is after him, armed, and outweights him by a wide margin. Fight-or-flight response? Flat out malice? Doesn't matter, by the same logic, Martin is fighting him in [I]self defense[/I].

Could someone tell me what is the current standpoint, who killed who in what circumstances? This story had so much updates, so much twists that I can't keep track anymore.

[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;35391193]who killed who in what circumstances?[/QUOTE]The current story is that Martin killed Zimmerman with a bag of Skittles. [sub][sub][sp]No, not really.[/sp][/sub][/sub]

It was Professor Zimmerman in the Suburb with the Gun.

[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] More like Terry Gilliam.

From what I've been hearing, it seems their is some racism involved when it comes down to when both cops and eye witness provided false evidance to just kill this one boy who is black. With scientific evidence, more and more evidence stacks against this wondering madman.