Audio Experts: Cries For “Help” On 911 Tapes Not Zimmerman’s

By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

The  chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, Tom Owen, and Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, have independently concluded that the furtive pleas for help clearly heard on the 911 tapes are not George Zimmerman’s. Both acknowledged experts used voice enhancing software, but different techniques, to rate the probability of the voice being Zimmerman’s at no more than 48%.  A 90% match is considered scientifically reliable.

In a report published by the Orlando Sentinel, Owen said he derived his conclusions based on biometric analysis. “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.'” The expert recently used the technique to identify the accused killer of Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.

 Owen, who also served as the chief engineer for the New York Public Library’s Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, said that, “as a result of [the testing], you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman.”

Ed Primeau agreed but went further, saying that, under the known circumstances, ” I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt. That’s a young man screaming.”  Primeau used the technique of voice enhancement to reach his conclusion. Unlike biometric analysis, his method does require an in-context sample of the voice for testing.

An article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer published in 2010 describes the 66-year-old Owen and his cohort, Stuart Allen, this way:

 [The pair have] more than six decades of experience between them in the forensic audio profession. They’ve worked with the FBI and other federal agencies, police departments, private detectives, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and news organizations. Many courts have designated them as expert witnesses. They’re good friends who sometimes are on opposing sides, but respect each other’s abilities. “Both of us are known as sort of contrarians,” Owen said.

Primeau is a former sound engineer in the movie industry who worked with pop stars Anita Baker, Bob Seger, and Barry Manilow.  Primeau has over thirty years of experience in voice identification and is a registered investigator for the American College of Forensic Examiners. He describes his work in voice identification as:

There can sometimes be differences in speech patterns that can help identify clues in your identification puzzle.  I look for several similarities as well as differences, nasal resonance differences, voice tone with regard to inflection both similarities and differences.

The test results seem to present another blow to Zimmerman’s credibility who claimed that it was his voice on the tape —  and not the African-American teen  — heard crying out for help mere seconds before the fatal gun shot.

It is likely that similar audio testing is being conducted by the FBI’s Digital Evidence Laboratory’s Forensic Audio, Video, and Image Analysis Unit, based in Quantico, Virginia. Should they reach the same conclusions as Owen and Primeau, Zimmerman would almost certainly face charges in the death. An opposite result would go a long way in substantiating his claim of self-defense.

Source; msnbc; Orland Sentinel; Cleveland Plain Dealer

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

320 thoughts on “Audio Experts: Cries For “Help” On 911 Tapes Not Zimmerman’s

  1. It also appears that there were no signs of a struggle on Trayvon’s body … just the bullet wound … according to the mortician.

    Some of the cops/prosecutors did a cover-up in this case.

    They should be prosecuted under federal criminal law for violation of civil rights.

  2. Seems like a 1983 action is reasonable under these circumstances…..I have used this type of expert before…. In validating voices in custody cases…. One person consent law allows this type of evidence to be introduced….. Filtering out the primary voice and making audible the person coaching the child what to say…… Useful…… Some folks have such dislike of the other parent having any meaningful relationship with the child…. Goes a long way in establishing parental alienation….. Which has been debunked by some courts…..

    Mark, good post….

  3. Good post, but in seeking some clarification of the testing standards and methodology mentioned above, I did find this quote on the Orlando Sentinel site: “‘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.” Thus rendering Primeau’s statement “I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt. That’s a young man screaming” to be opinion and of limited probative value (I’m assuming by timbre and the like he can identify scientifically that it is a young man’s voice even if he can’t say with certainty that it is Trayvon’s).

  4. Gene H:

    That’s my read on it. Primeau is excluding the older, deeper-voiced Zimmerman based on comparison to his known speech earlier on the tape. Owen is not relying on voice comparisons but biometric analysis where he doesn’t need the voice of Zimmerman “in-context” to analyze it but can deduce it from a comparison of known patterns earlier on the tape that cannot be changed by the circumstances of the speech, excited, elated, etc.

  5. Mark,
    An intriguing article. It is amazing that we even have to go this far to see the disgusting unfairness in the handling of this sad case. Well done!

  6. NBC to do ‘internal investigation’ on Zimmerman segment

    “We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”

    the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

    Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

    Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

    Zimmerman: He looks black.

    The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html?hpid=z6

  7. The Florida funeral director who handled the burial of Trayvon Martin says there were no signs of a scuffle on the dead teen, contradicting the story of the man who claimed he killed Martin during a violent scuffle. Martin died of a gunshot, the only apparent injury says the funeral director.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7403734n

  8. Neighbor defends George Zimmerman

    The neighbor is talking for the first time about what he saw on George Zimmerman’s face less than 24-hours after Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

    “I saw George. He was banged up. His head had two big bandages, that weren’t flat, had a bump on them,” the neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said.

    He described where the injuries were.

    “I seen him have a big bandage on his nose and his nose swollen. On the side, where his eyes were at, it was swollen,” he said.

    He points out exactly where on a picture.

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/neighbor-defends-george-zimmerman-03302012

  9. Biden: Gun laws likely to be debated in wake of Trayvon Martin shooting

    http://thehill.com/video/administration/219347-biden-gun-laws-likely-to-be-debated-in-wake-of-trayvon-martin-shooting

    The National Association for Legal Gun Defense wants to contribute $10,000 toward George Zimmerman’s legal expenses, a member said today.

    The group represents gun owners involved in self-defense shooting cases, said attorney Blue Rannefeld of Fort Worth, Texas.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-30/news/os-george-zimmerman-lawyers-offer-10000-20120330_1_shooting-death-legal-expenses-legal-defense

  10. Bdaman,
    Will you look at the Palmdale, California case that you posted? It actually shows that in some areas of the country, attackers can be arrested for their alleged crimes.

  11. Had the main scream media not portrayed it as a hate crime it wouldn’t have happened now seven black teens who probably had never been in trouble with the law WILL PROBABLY be charged with a hate crime because it was PROBABLY in direct response to the Zimmerman case.

    Remember first Zimmerman was white and now he’s a white hispanic.

    NBC to do ‘internal investigation’ on Zimmerman segment

    “We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”

    the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

    Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

    Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

    Zimmerman: He looks black.

    The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html?hpid=z6

  12. Thanks for some good news this morning.

    From the Cleveland link:

    “Like Allen, Owen enjoys the excitement of forensic work. And he contends his musical training — he played in backing bands for the Shangri-Las and other groups — helped hone his skills.

    “I always maintain that the best forensic people are former musicians, because they’ve got the best ears,” he said.”

  13. This has come away from the voice analysis issue a bit here, but just to get it back, I wonder about this: Surely there are some recorded clips of Trayvon Martin’s voice? Perhaps he left voice-mail messages for someone before he died? Perhaps his parents or friends have a video of him from recent years in which his voice was recorded? This is important stuff with real evidentiary value, not just some neighbor saying he saw bandages 24 hours after the event. (I wouldn’t care what his face looked like 24 hours later, frankly; he has a history of women beating him up, according to the domestic violence restraining order; perhaps when he got home that night his wife, learning that he forgot to pick up toilet paper at Target, gave him a few educational punches.) I sure hope the media attention to the voice analyses can punch up somebody’s voice recording of Trayvon Martin to be used in comparison, to make the evidence gathering better. And another idea is — why doesn’t Zimmerman just yell “Help Help Help” in a police station to be recorded under controlled circumstances and then THAT TAPE can be compared to the tape of the 911 call referenced? That would really HELP. (At some future time, if Zimmerman actually does get charged with a crime, there may be opportunities to record him yelling “help help” under controlled circumstances.)

  14. what the hell good is evidence if the police department doesn’t investigate, doesn’t protect the crime scene, doesn’t make an arrest, is prejudiced themselves? IT’S NO GOOD AT ALL!

  15. From what I understand, the cops DID arrest Zimmerman and the fact is he was taken into custody. He was NOT charged by reason of the DA or his reps, thus Zimmerman walking out free. I read that the police DID want him charged, but that was not their call to make.

  16. “In a report published by the Orlando Sentinel, Owen said he derived his conclusions based on biometric analysis. “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.’” The expert recently used the technique to identify the accused killer of Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.”

    Hey you lawyers types, is there actually any science, any peer reviewed science, and Daubert hearings on this stuff?

    For instance, though the headline says “it’s not George Zimmerman”, the article says “Both acknowledged experts used voice enhancing software, but different techniques, to rate the probability of the voice being Zimmerman’s at no more than 48%.”

    What does that mean? That the probability it’s Martin is 52%?

    Why would a paper or smart lawyers think that means anything, or that their analysis can be so precise?

    The Orlando Sentinel sure makes it all sound very sciencey and accurate, but the Sentinel’s actual description would match with many techniques that are just a great deal of woo and not much else.

    I am not arguing anything wrt Zimmerman or Martin, just asking if this sort of audio analysis had anything to back it up.

    How much sciencey crapola gets into a courtroom that later on is proven to be absolute nonsense even though everyone at the time and for decades considered it to be rock solid.

    (Also, is it true that fingerprints have never gone through a Daubert test? http://www.hacklaw.com/2011/10/dauberts-fingerprint.html)

  17. Good comments. Obviously there are questions and controversy…which is the point of a through objective inestigation.

    I think is fair to argue that any no retreat law that is invoked in a killing would have to face such an investigation. The consequences of such a law/defense without a complete credible investigation are so open to abuse as to be a giant step into racial war.

    For those that think this is good law I would remind them that there is nothing that says a black man cannot use the same defense as Zimmerman is using, and if the murderer is planning such a murder the defense would be much better set up.

    What goes around comes around…

  18. Malisha,

    One would hope that there is a contemporaneous voice exemplar from Trayvon somewhere. That would be an evidentiary best case scenario since I think Primeau’s statement was made by applying Occam’s Razor to the facts of the case. Even if the screaming voice turned out not to be Trayvon’s, it still does not negate the value of the evidence that it is certainly not Zimmerman’s.

  19. “Even if the screaming voice turned out not to be Trayvon’s, it still does not negate the value of the evidence that it is certainly not Zimmerman’s.”

    Can you expand on this?

  20. anon,

    It goes against Zimmerman’s claims of his being attacked. Even if that voice turns out to be a third person, it could/would point to an heretofore unknown witness (whose testimony would be of an unknown quality). Knowing the voice isn’t Zimmerman has intrinsic evidentiary value.

  21. The world of EMS teaches us that victims are not always screamers.

    And the quiet ones are not always attackers.

    In the end – if we ever do learn all the facts – it may well turn out that neither parties to this sad case are completely blameless.

  22. “It goes against Zimmerman’s claims of his being attacked. Even if that voice turns out to be a third person, it could/would point to an heretofore unknown witness (whose testimony would be of an unknown quality). Knowing the voice isn’t Zimmerman has intrinsic evidentiary value.”

    So I agree with this except for three aspects:

    1) As I laid out above, my reading of that article is that the one guy is saying it’s 50/50 if it is Zimmerman and yet the headline (and everyone else) seems to be interpreting that as “it’s not Zimmerman”. And I don’t understand how that occurs.

    2) While I know absolutely nothing about “forensic audio analysis” works, this statement sounds like woo: “Owen said he derived his conclusions based on biometric analysis. “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.’” ” Maybe it’s true, but it needs a citation at the least, and my very quick googling found no support for it.

    3) Given how there is currently no evidence for there being another eye-witness (apart from the person Treyvon was calling and people in a house) and given what little I know of forensic audio identification, I’d say Occam’s Razor suggests that if the voice is neither Zimmerman’s nor Martin’s, it’s evidence that forensic audio identification based on biometrics as these experts conduct it is BS.

    “Ahh, but the hidden witness that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a third party to the shooting DID exist, and I’d have produced that key witness too if they hadn’t of pulled the Cain out of action…. (click-click click click-click-click…)”

  23. “It goes against Zimmerman’s claims of his being attacked.”

    “1) As I laid out above, my reading of that article is that the one guy is saying it’s 50/50 if it is Zimmerman and yet the headline (and everyone else) seems to be interpreting that as “it’s not Zimmerman”. And I don’t understand how that occurs.”

    “Owen told the newspaper he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman’s voice to the 911 call screams.

    ‘I’ve run it against 300 voices and it was better than 99 percent in all cases'” he told MSNBC when asked about its accuracy.

    Owen told the newspaper that the software compared the screams to Zimmerman’s voice and returned a 48 percent match. He said he would expect a match of higher than 90 percent, considering the quality of the audio.

    ‘As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,’ Owen told the Sentinel.” – msnbc

    Owen is saying the voice only approximately matches half the data points as Zimmerman’s baseline sample given the quality of the recording.

    “2) While I know absolutely nothing about “forensic audio analysis” works, this statement sounds like woo:”

    Then you are offering uninformed opinion and the rest of that statement should be evaluated as such.

    “3) Given how there is currently no evidence for there being another eye-witness (apart from the person Treyvon was calling and people in a house) and given what little I know of forensic audio identification, I’d say Occam’s Razor suggests that if the voice is neither Zimmerman’s nor Martin’s, it’s evidence that forensic audio identification based on biometrics as these experts conduct it is BS.”

    “Even if that voice turns out to be a third person, it could/would point to an heretofore unknown witness (whose testimony would be of an unknown quality).”

    To discount that possibility doesn’t discredit the analysis, but discounting that possibility would be committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. The voice is not Zimmerman’s. We cannot be certain if it is Trayvon’s absent an exemplar for comparison. If it is not Zimmerman’s (lacking nearly half the data points required to make a match given the quality of recording) and we can’t be certain it is or isn’t Trayvon’s voice, then the possibility of a third party must remain open until Trayvon’s voice can be ruled in or out. This isn’t a binary choice as conclusive analysis is not had yet, but that doesn’t mean the analysis is “BS”. Simply incomplete.

  24. Here you go again bashing George Zimmerman as he were guilty. I bet the next thing you will say is that he is gay! You homophobes.

    It does not determine whose voice it is, what is wrong? Can’t you understand normal thinking?

  25. “It does not determine whose voice it is, what is wrong?”

    No, it doesn’t determine who’s voice it is, but then again, no one has claimed that it does. What it determines is who’s voice it isn’t though to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty and it wasn’t Zimmerman’s voice.
    What is wrong? There is nothing to indicate there is anything wrong with the biometric voice analysis done on the tapes of the 911 call.

  26. Gene,

    ““2) While I know absolutely nothing about “forensic audio analysis” works, this statement sounds like woo:”

    Then you are offering uninformed opinion and the rest of that statement should be evaluated as such.”

    I read the OS article, not the MSNBC one. So thank you.

    Here is the website of easyvoicebiometrics:

    http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/

    Does this website, does this product indicate to you:

    1) It is based on scientific principles? If so, which ones?
    2) It is supported by peer reviewed research?
    3) It has been tested by a independent testing service?
    4) It has a track record demonstrating its accuracy?

    5) THAT IT CAN DO WHAT THE “EXPERTS” HERE CLAIM IT CAN DO, that is, distinguish the voice of one person from another on any sort of probabilistic basis? (“Owen told the newspaper that the software compared the screams to Zimmerman’s voice and returned a 48 percent match. He said he would expect a match of higher than 90 percent, considering the quality of the audio.”)

    6) Has Owen had formal training in the use of this tool?
    7) When was he last trained?
    8) What were his grades?

    9) What version of the software is he running?

    10) What does the FBI or NSA think of “easyvoicebiometrics”?

    Do you understand that there is no “easy voice biometrics company”, instead

    “Easy Voice Biometrics is a partnership between several companies working as one to provide technically superior forensics voice products, with advanced support.”

    Does that give you confidence in their product that their lack of FBI/NSA/PhD testimonials hasn’t? Does that give you confidence their product is a well-integrated whole and not an amalgam hodge podge of scripts from three bored hackers?

    Look at this page:

    http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=easyvoicescreen

    Is there anything there, on that page, there Features and Screenshots page that makes it seem as though this application can do what Owen describes?

    It seems from this page all this product does is let you play back various recordings and compare them YOURSELF audibly.

    What math is it performing? What is the scientific theory behind this produict?

    Again, I am not making any statement here about Zimmerman vs. Treyvon, I am only saying this stuff about voice analysis of the scream seems like total crap, and now looking at the various author’s page, it seems like even more crap, crap piled on top of crap.

    Why are people buying this?

    FINALLY

    “”“2) While I know absolutely nothing about “forensic audio analysis” works, this statement sounds like woo:”

    Then you are offering uninformed opinion and the rest of that statement should be evaluated as such.”

    THEN TELL US WHAT YOUR INFORMED BACKGROUND IN THIS IS AND WHY YOU ACCEPT THIS TOTAL BULLSHIT AS LEGITIMATE?

  27. anon,

    I understand statistical analysis. Your statement regarding probability indicates that you probably don’t or you’d have realized that what was being said was not that there was a “50/50 chance” it was Zimmerman. As to the software of choice? Tom Owen is the chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence and Ed Primeau is a registered investigator for the American College of Forensic Examiners. Both are what is known in the legal business as “expert witnesses”. I’m perfectly comfortable leaving the choice of software to two forensic professionals. If their evidence and related testimony is good enough to be admissible in court (and it is), then I have no issue with it. That is, after all, where the rubber meets the legal road.

  28. PP,
    OK, but fist fights don’t usuallly result in death? Or do they?
    But guns often do, if they are fired. Right.
    So who brings a gun to a confrontation but one who wants to use it.
    Not law perhaps, but says something to me

    You’ve been there. What say?

  29. Okay Gene,

    Deferring to your understanding of statistical analysis,

    Gene, go to this page: http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=videowalkthrough

    Listen to the first video starting at 6:50 to about 7:50.

    Tell me:

    What is being matched?
    How is it being matched?

    What is the range of a match number? (Answer: from 0 to 100)
    How is this match number different from a probability? (And I think there could be many ways, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK?)

    Can you compute a probability from a match number?

    If so, HOW?

    What are the characteristics of a voice or audio sample that is being matched?
    What statistics are they using to perform this match?

    What does the statement “It returned a 48 percent match.” mean?

    WHAT IS BEING MATCHED Gene?

    Note how the speaker of the audio at 7:48 mean when he says “probability” and is he confusing these “match numbers” with probability, and is this confusion intentional or accidental?

    So when Owen says later there is a 48% match and he would expect 90% match is Owen referring to some match number by itself or confusing that with a probability?

    At the beginning and end of this video, the speaker says you still need a trained expert.

    So going back to my earlier questions, what is Owen’s training? How was he trained in the use of this software, or in audio identification techniques?How accurate is he?

    But going back to this software, the software as it is is BULLSHIT. It is a DIVINING ROD.

    If this software was ever used to convict anyone and their attorney did not attack it on these and other grounds, that person had a terrible attorney (mespo probably), and it is a shame on our entire justice system.

  30. anon,

    That’s your non-expert opinion and you’re entitled to it. If you want to challenge either Owen or Primeau’s credentials and qualifications to be expert witnesses, the time and place for that is on cross. Given that one is the chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence and the other is a registered investigator for the American College of Forensic Examiners, I’d say good luck with that. See you at trial.

  31. anon.

    The simple conclusion is that if the audio analysis methodology is to be believed — and apparently the FBI does since it uses Owen from time to time — then Zimmerman’s claims that it was his voice screaming for help are lies and his credibility is shot. Since his whole defense hinges on his credibility, his case may be shot, too.

    Zimmerman’s word is on trial in the court of public opinion (since we can’t seem to muster the courage to let the system work with a Grand Jury) and the video tape as well as the audio analysis seems to be reaching the same sad conclusion: Zimmerman is a gun-equipped coward who cannot restrain his busybody instincts. An unarmed 140 pound kid is dead and everybody with a conscience or a kid or both wants some answers besides the self-serving ones offered up by Zimmerman, his talk show touring family and friends, and the Sanford police who must be using the time tested investigation methods pioneered by the Keystone Cops.

    Rush to judgment? Ask the experts on the topic in this sad state of affairs — the Sanford Police Department. Guess they never heard of voice recognition experts, video analysis, or maybe even the FBI.

  32. Mespo,

    “The simple conclusion is that if the audio analysis methodology is to be believed — and apparently the FBI does since it uses Owen from time to time — then Zimmerman’s claims that it was his voice screaming for help are lies and his credibility is shot. Since his whole defense hinges on his credibility, his case may be shot, too”

    I started off asking you lawyer types what the science and credibility of this sort of analysis was. Because I don’t know. It seems sciencey, but likely to be bullshit.

    I have no opinion on the Zimmerman Martin stuff. Zimmerman if he is not guilty, certainly deserves all the shit heaped his way for the offense of being a serial douchebag and “a gun-equipped coward who cannot restrain his busybody instincts.”

    I am only asking about this audio identification stuff.

    We actually DON’T know that the FBI believes this software is any good or that Owen is any good. We actually DON’T know that Owen has worked with the FBI. If his claims to have worked with the FBI is true, is this some guy in some field office, or is this the scientists at Quantico? What does the FBI think of the guy now?

    As Gene boasts: “Given that one is the chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence and the other is a registered investigator for the American College of Forensic Examiners, I’d say good luck with that. See you at trial.”

    These guys are sound engineers with a music background.

    They can identify hisses, pops, rerecordings, tape-overs, and they can enhance audio quality. But when it comes down to it, they are not equipped to discuss the mathematics or the statistics behind what this piece of software can do. They use it like a divining rod, AND THEN they use their ears to identify the voices.

    That is clear if you listen to the material and examine the website of easy voice biometrics.

    What does it mean to be a registered investigator? What does that mean? That one is an expert or that one has filled out a form and maybe taken a test regarding their role vis a vis the law?

    This stuff as presented by the articles and supported by the easy biometrics voice site is total bullshit and woo.

    Any attorney that would go into court and fear these assholes based on what has been presented here is a dickless brainless incompetent.

    If you were to use these guys in court in your own cases, you’d better double check the qualifications and make sure you can get some FBI guy to testify on their behalf and find out what the hell is going on with that ridiculous piece of software.

    You’re the lawyer: how do you think this piece of software, given what we have on their website, would hold up to Daubert (whatever the hell that is.)

  33. OK guys. I do know this stuff and have several thousand dollars worth of voice audio analysis gear in my office closet to show for it. This is not as hard as it sounds. The analysis, from a scientific standpoint, is not unlike fingerprints or DNA. If you have a match that is less than 60%, you can say the likelihood of it being the person in question is zero. Tom Owen, and Ed Primeau came to their virtually identical conclusions separately and without consulting each other. You now have two analyses by two of the country’s leading experts. The chances of the yells being Zimmerman’s are nil. Next question is to look for the person whose voice is on those recordings. Is it Martin? At this point, no one can say with reasonable certainty until a sample of his voice is produced. Hopefully he made some audio or video recordings that will surface.

    BTW, last I heard, this equipment and technology had withstood a Daubert challenge. I have used it in court and had my evidence accepted. If someone knows different, or more recent case law, I will defer.

  34. Thanks OS, always nice to have a deux ex machina response,

    “BTW, last I heard, this equipment and technology had withstood a Daubert challenge. I have used it in court and had my evidence accepted. If someone knows different, or more recent case law, I will defer.”

    Did you use the software package “Easy Voice Biometrics”?

    How has this package withstood Daubert? (Does each package need to do something like that and be certified for use in court?)

    “If you have a match that is less than 60%”

    A MATCH OF WHAT?

    What is being matched?

    If you visit the website I linked to above and look through their news articles, you’ll find:

    No mention of who the CEO or President of the company is. Nor the name of the author of the software. You’ll find two names: one a PR spokesman, and two: Tom Owen, giving a testimonial for this software that he uses to sell his services as an expert witness.

    Here is Ed Primeau’s website http://edprimeau.com/expert-witness/

    Read it.

    Ask yourself: Does Ed Primeau rely on a piece of software to give him some sort of automatic voice identification match number, or does he use all sorts of software and hardware to clean up a sound sample and then use his EARS to make the voice recognition?

  35. The human voice is easily graphed. Just like DNA can be graphed. No two people are alike due to differences in the vocal cords and resonant cavity of the mouth and nasal passageways. This is not new technology. It has been around for years. You can get a visual match, point by point. I am not going to go into the technology. Suffice it to say that since I acquired my stuff a number of years ago, the technology has advanced dramatically. In the same way that other electronics have evolved from 8-bit graphics to 64-bit in some new video games. For a crude example of how the graphics can look with some technologies, take a look at how SoundCloud does it.

  36. “The human voice is easily graphed. Just like DNA can be graphed. No two people are alike due to differences in the vocal cords and resonant cavity of the mouth and nasal passageways. This is not new technology. It has been around for years. You can get a visual match, point by point. I am not going to go into the technology. Suffice it to say that since I acquired my stuff a number of years ago, the technology has advanced dramatically. In the same way that other electronics have evolved from 8-bit graphics to 64-bit in some new video games. For a crude example of how the graphics can look with some technologies, take a look at how SoundCloud does it.

    http://soundcloud.com/kestrel9000/911clip

    I bet you sound great in court, but treknobabble aside, unless you want to talk about the science and technology behind it, at least to answer what is being matched, and what is the science behind saying that a less than 60% match means nothing and a greater than 60% match is significant, how that was determined, calibrated, and sample sizes, I still say you got nothing more than an appeal to authority, a deux ex machina response.

  37. anon, I could care less what you think or opine. And I don’t have a week to spare to explain the mechanics of this to you. I told you some information. Take it or leave it. I don’t care.

  38. No prob, OS, if you had a clue as to what you were talking about, it would’ve taken less time than your three non-response answers.

    But I mean this in all honesty and sincerity, I bet you are a terrific expert witness.

  39. Easy Voice Biometrics, a product recently introduced to the market, does not cite acceptance by any court on their website. In fact, as their demo video suggests, a high probability match should then be turned over to a audio forensics expert. I wonder if Mr. Owens is an investor in this product.

    Here is a demo video of their software:

    Nothing in what they provide would convince me that they can sufficiently compare a cry for help with a normal speech pattern recording and produce accurate results. The software could compare a normal voice recording of Owen with that of his own cry for help and provide similar results to that of the comparison of Zimmerman to the 911 recording. Owen provides nothing to demonstrate that any comparison to a cry for help has been performed.

    Was this software designed to identify a person screaming who is screaming? Have they examined a sufficient data-set to make any reliable claims regarding the accuracy of the software for that specific purpose?

    anon, Daubert refers to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

  40. Actually OS, I never asked for “case law”…

    I asked:

    How does this work? (To which your last two links provide a nice starting point, but until then you were notoriously evasive and non-responsive.

    Has it passed Daubert (Yes or no from Gene and a link would have sufficed, but clearly, Gene has no clue.)

    And I asked YOU after your appeal to authority, assuring us this was all kosher,

    Have YOU use the software package “Easy Voice Biometrics”? STILL NO RESPONSE from you.

    How has this package withstood Daubert? (Does each package need to do something like that and be certified for use in court?) STILL NO RESPONSE

    “If you have a match that is less than 60%” A MATCH OF WHAT?

    What is the science behind saying that a less than 60% match means nothing and a greater than 60% match is significant — STILL NO RESPONSE

    Go through and see what I asked, and please in the future, don’t misrepresent what I’ve asked.

    Just because voiceprint identification passes Daubert means nothing as to whether this package is valid, or to whether Tom Owens and EVB is a huckster.

    And if you read my questions, you’ll see they are much more about the bizarro nature of how Owens was quoted and is quote was interpreted than about voiceprints in general, although I do thank you for your last two links that do address that.

    I am still particularly interested in:

    What is the science behind saying that a less than 60% match means nothing and a greater than 60% match is significant?

  41. Randy, this is not new technology. Only upgraded technology. Voices have been analyzed where the person tried to disguise their voice, to no avail. Case law on this stuff goes back to the early 1970s, when the standard for expert evidence was Frye.

  42. When the stories first exploded the media (not this blog) was describing Zimmerman as: The Watchman, Neighborhood Watchman, Neighborhood Watch Commander. We have yet to see any evidence that any entity appointed him to some such post or job. It looks like the cop department was relying on him in the past. It might be that there is a condo association or neighborhood association that might have annoited him in some fashion. In the absence of such an appointment he is what we term in this country as a “vigilante”. Let us start calling the schmuck by the right term.

  43. Thank you Randy,

    If you scrutinize EVB’s website there are only two names listed. One is for a PR spokesperson responsible for a press release, and the other is Tom Owens.

    And you’re right, in the beginning and end of that video above, they stress that their product does not produce any sort of automatic voice identification, it essentially can be used as a filter to eliminate other samples, but that you are still required to have a human perform his/her own actual voice analysis on the samples.

    And I understand Daubert is a nice step, but no panacea to eliminating quackery from the courtroom, as is clear from OS’s treknobabble it’s easy to appeal to authority and mystical CSI like incantations while saying essentially nothing.

    Again for OS, and thank you for your links, what is the science behind saying a less than 60% match means nothing and a greater than 60% match is significant?

    Was that determined theoretically? Experimentally? How? What was the sample size?

    Or is it a guideline and rule of thumb that is sciencey at its heart and otherwise bogus?

  44. I never said that 60% was a magic number above which it is a “match.” What I said was that if you cannot get even 60% (less than the current sample) there was NO match. The odds of it being the sample person is nil. It is somebody else. I agree with the experts that you should have a match in the neighborhood of 90% in order to present it as credible evidence for identification purposes in a court of law. Read the case law–that’s why I posted it. That tells you what the courts expect in the way of evidence.

  45. “I never said that 60% was a magic number above which it is a “match.” What I said was that if you cannot get even 60% (less than the current sample) there was NO match. The odds of it being the sample person is nil. It is somebody else. I agree with the experts that you should have a match in the neighborhood of 90% in order to present it as credible evidence for identification purposes in a court of law.”

    I have a bbq I need to get to so I will not be reading case law at this time.

    It is still not clear to me what is being matched. What features, what patterns, of a spectrogram are looked for? Which of these kinds of patterns is considered more significant than others, and why?

    Then, do the 60, 90% numbers have a scientific basis? Were they tested against a population of audio samples? Is there peer reviewed research behind them? Or are they just guidelines established in court to be sciencey?

    (With all respect, I would think these should be pretty easy answers for any expert witness in voice identification. I know crap about the law or how depositions are made, but these would be the first of 20 pages of questions about the science I would ask anyone in such a deposition.)

    By the way, it’s clear to me that the Navy and the NSA and probably Google and Nuance can do this in software. But it’s not at all clear to me that EVB can do this and as instantaneously as they claim to be able to do that.

  46. Otteray Scribe,

    I only said that it was a new product. I know this product has not been reviewed by NIST. In the world of forensic software and hardware, NIST certification is a must. (You probably already knew that.)

    Do you know of any tests in which a cry for help was compared to the recording of a normal conversation and then examined for identity purposes? I know of none. I am interested because it has been my experience that a cry for help is a significant departure from normal speech patterns.

    I plan to contact this company on Monday to see if a demo version is available. If it is, I will get some colleagues and neighbor children to provide voice and cry for help samples and examine the results.

  47. Randy, off the top of my head, the answer is no. However, if I were to be consulted on a case like this, you can bet that I would be running repeated double blind tests on a variety of subjects, both male and female. As you probably know, you must have repeatable baseline data with acceptable statistical properties (such as standard deviation and error of measurement) before you can make any statement regarding deviations from the baseline.

    This may already have been done. I have not done a review of the literature on this stuff in quite a while.

  48. Randy, the elephant in the room here that no one has addressed, is the fact that Zimmerman is still alive. He could be compelled to provide exemplars of his voice shouting or screaming some of the same words that are on the tape. Since it would be in his own best interest if there were a match, he and his attorney would have a hard time explaining a refusal.

  49. T. Dog has a good point: ‘vigilante’. Or, as has been reported, cop wannabe.

    I understand there has been a lot of hype on all sides. But it’s beginning to ‘look’, i.e., not all dressed up in legal stuff, like racial profiling + brutality + self-anointed guardian becomes more probable.

  50. OS:

    Not sure Zimmerman could refuse. The Courts have ordered defendants to provide hand-writing exemplars, blood samples, and other bodily fluids for testing without violating the 5th Amendment. Not sure why they couldn’t require voice exemplars.

  51. Mespo, I agree that I see no reason that he could refuse if ordered. What I meant was that if he did try to refuse, he and his attorney would have a lot of explaining to do to the judge to justify such an attempt at refusal. However, I do recall a couple of cases where voice sample recordings were ordered to be produced by a defendant, and they were produced despite the defense attorney making an objection for the record.

  52. Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988):

    The Supreme Court has held some acts of production are
    unprivileged such as providing fingerprints, blood samples,
    or voice recordings. 487 US. at 210. Production of such
    evidence gives no indication of a person’s thoughts or
    knowledge because it is undeniable that a person possesses
    his own fingerprints, blood, and voice. Id. at 210-11.

    In accord, United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, 410 U. S. 7 (1973)

  53. OS:

    I am imagining how the government might compel him to provide a voice exemplar of screaming if Zimmerman refused.

  54. anon,

    You didn’t ask anything about Daubert. You asked why I believed accredited expert witnesses instead of your ravings that the software was BULLSHIT (to quote). I told you because their testimony was admissible. If that doesn’t give you want you wanted, you should have been more specific.

  55. Has a cry for help ever been used to identify the person who was crying for help? In other words, is the science sufficient to draw a reliable conclusion?

    If it is, I would agree that a sample should be provided.

  56. mespo, they could bring in Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as consultants. I am sure they have some ideas.

  57. OS:

    I guess both would qualify under Daubert as experts in scream making.

    The whole argument by anon is meaningless. The FBI will be handling the voice analysis and their guy, Dave Snyder, has qualified as an expert hundreds of times and in many federal courts. He should have very little problem with credentials or methodolgy in Florida state courts if that’s where the case ends up.

    Voice identification evidence has been admissible for at least forty years and is very reliable in the right hands. Owen and Primeau are top notch guys and their results probably foreshadow the FBI’s findings. Owen’s worked with them many times.

  58. Randy, identification of age and gender by how it sounds to the naked ear are irrelevant in spectrographic analysis. That is the auditory equivalent of looking at a drop of blood and trying to determine the blood type. Or showing me a fingerprint and asking the age and gender of whose it is.

    It is what shows up on the spectrograph that matters. Here is an example of how that works in the real world. Your mechanic can tune up your car by ear; I know, because I have done that myself. However, the timing can be set much more accurately using an oscilloscope. You often see those being used at tuneup clinics. Trust the oscilloscope to be far more accurate than your ear.

  59. I think the manning and doe cases are standard pleas, request and legal demands that I have served upon prosecutors…… Then I objected like hell when they try and use it……

  60. Randy 1, April 1, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    Has a cry for help ever been used to identify the person who was crying for help? In other words, is the science sufficient to draw a reliable conclusion?
    ===============================
    OS et. al. covered this, but I would add one thing.

    We need to remember burden of proof and persuasion. In the case in chief, i.e. did Zimmerman kill Martin with a gun, the burden is on the government to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Since Zimmerman admits this, the case in chief is cut and dried.

    On the defense, Zimmerman has the burden of proof and persuasion on his affirmative defense (self defense) claim.

    In that regard, Zimmerman’s case is getting shabbier and shabbier by the moment.

    As a result, he is drawing wrath to himself, and would do better to give it up.

    Likewise the officials, who conspired to help Zimmerman out of the murder of Martin.

  61. Dredd:

    It’s chilling to remember that were it not for the widespread public outrage, this case would have never been fully investigated and certainly no charges would have been even contemplated. It’s a promising sign of democracy in action and a relative good.

  62. Otteray Scribe,

    “That is the auditory equivalent of looking at a drop of blood and trying to determine the blood type. Or showing me a fingerprint and asking the age and gender of whose it is.”

    Bull Hockey. Every day, people all over the world accurately determine the sex and age of a person by their voice. Only on rare occasions do I mistake the sex or age group of a person on the other end of the phone. I doubt I could achieve such accuracy with a drop of blood or a fingerprint.

    One of the first rules of using any piece of equipment is to test it against a known good source prior to using it on something critical. In this case I don’t think either of the two experts had a source of sufficient sample quality/quantity to reliably determine the age of the person calling for help, let alone the identity. I think a court ordered/voluntary sample of Zimmerman crying for help is crucial to any reliable conclusion.

    By the Way… If you listened to the audio and were wondering…You’ll get a chuckle out of this.

  63. Randy, I don’t think you understand the scientific principles being discussed here. Impressions are irrelevant. Ipse dixit</em) does not work in a courtroom.

  64. @Malisha – Well Mr. Martin (the dad) already stipulated that the voice was NOT Trayvon’s. So know it’s not George’s either? Could it have been a neighbor screaming for help for both of them? Since SPD released the actual address of the killing (back yard) we now know the REAL names of the neighbor/witnesses that were there. One of them was the so-called “John” who’s real name is NOT John. Come to find out George’s sister also lives on Twin Trees Ln right next to the mailbox kiosk at the club house where he allegedly parked his SUV. Also you can see George’s white Chevrolet Suburban parked at his apartment at 1950 Retreat View on BING.com Maps.

    I think George’s ex-fellow employee at the security company really hurt George’s story. He call’s George a Jekyll & Hyde person with a huge temper. He physically attacked a woman on the job and was fired. He even attacked a SPD police office once too.

    Now his injuries: where’s the hematoma (lump) on the back of his head that would formed from a life-threatening head bashing concrete incident? Another neighbor claims he saw it at the scene. John Oliver (black family PAID friend and ex-WESH-TV News Anchor) says “It was 4 hours before he got to the police station…” He was trying to say that the Fire Dept cleaned up his hematoma’s, traumatic lesions, swollen nose bridge, and they miraculously disappeared later? Also 4-hours would put the cops too close to midnight shift change since they weren’t clear from the crime scene until 8-9PM.

    Why would SPD take him to his home around the corner to clean up and change bloody clothes as one Einstein here claimed? That would break the evidence chain of custody and is not S.O.P. The responding Detective DID allegedly place George under arrest at the scene and cuffed him. Why? Because he believed he was lying about Trayvon finding and taking his Kel-Tek P-11 pistol from George’s waistband. The detective said “How could Trayvon find a gun that was supposed to be totally CONCEALED as per Mr. Zimmerman’s carry permit stipulates?” However, the arrest was overturned by state’s atty and he was released on O.R. (own recognizance).

    What every right-wing pundit here is seeing on the back of George’s head at the SPD sally-port is just the swirl of the grain of his hair after his barber cut all that hair he had a few months ago. It’s not a cleaned-up laceration or lesions. What that so-called unbiased neighbor saw was either a hallucination or somebody put faked bandages on George at the scene.

    NEWS FLASH; Austin Brown RETRACTS his initial report to SPD that he saw a man on the ground with a red shirt. Now it’s he did not see ANYTHING as it was too dark. His mom says he was pressured by SPD officer to say otherwise. He did, however, hear the gun shot.

    It’s looking really bad for George. The new prosecutor assigned to the case is known as a “shark”. So the NRA better come up with more than $10k for his defense. Make it 100 times that. And they better get Dr. Kevorkian’s lawyer too. The clown they have now is a coward and walked off the set at MSNBC the other day.

  65. Did you get your feelings hurt, Otteray Scribe? Do you have a problem with being corrected?

    I left your use of an oscilloscope for automotive timing alone. Do you even know what timing is? Try to explain how an occilloscope can be used to set the timing of an engine. You can’t, because it can’t.

    How appropriate that you should bring up ipse dixit. I was thinking the same thing myself.

    “But nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.”
    General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136 – Supreme Court 1997

    That analytical gap is exactly what we currently have here. There are ways to narrow that gap, but it has not been sufficiently narrowed to permit the conclusions of Owen and Primeau to overcome reasonable scrutiny.

  66. @Randy – There was an entire Seinfeld episode about how people mistake a disembodied voice (telephone or recording) for the WRONG gender. I have been amazed at hearing a woman on a Burger King microphone and then seeing a MAN at the window – still speaking in that female-like tone. Some men sound female and visa-versa. You can do voice matching with samples from George and Trayvon but we only have George’s voice. I think if we compare it to the other 911 voices we’ll see it’s one of the neighbors on 911 who was panicky like that old woman who kept interrupting the 911 dispatcher.

  67. BTW – With new DNA techniques you can use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on a original oily fingerprint(s) and get some DNA. Once you have that you may be able to tell gender and maybe even ethnicity with the new Genographics database at Harvard. Not sure it’s up to the level of local police, FBI, court, etc. For now kinda’ only used in *certain* circles and communities… The others will catch up soon I hope…

  68. Ummm – I think you guys are WAY behind in the speaker-independent voice recognition technology. Computers are very accurate today with voice-recog and if you play that 911 recording into Google Chrome at the Google Voice Search site you will see the system decode it pretty close. So can computers distinguish George’s or Trayvon’s NORMAL voice from a SCREAMING voice? I think the technology is there today. Albeit only available to people like DARPA, NSA, CIA, Etc *. but still available. Does FBI have it yet? Maybe. Not sure if Quantico is up to that level yet. I think they’re still using IBM and Microsoft products. :->

    *C.T.U. folks use this software daily to identify terrorist’s voices against a library of voices on captured telephone and radio calls (ELINT/SIGINT).

  69. Sonofthunder,

    In the Seinfeld episode they used the same person for both voices. The did a voice-over on the man using the woman’s voice. It was a spoof, not a demonstration.

    I never said the use of voice was 100% accurate, only that it is very reliable.

    “we’ll see it’s one of the neighbors on 911 who was panicky like that old woman who kept interrupting the 911 dispatcher”

    Do you mean the panicky old woman that you identified to be such by her voice alone? :-)

    I know what Otteray Scribe was talking about when he identifies an ocilloscope in an auto repair shop. The problem is that those shops don’t use that tool to set timing.

  70. TIME has a good article ‘The Law Heard Round The World’, in the april issue. “Trayvon Martin;s death raises the question. Can “stand your ground’ be defended.

  71. idealist707 –

    I’m surely no apologist for Zimmerman. And I share anyone else’s skepticism re: a neighborhood watch fellow carrying a weapon in the first place. By carrying it, I’d have to conclude that you are establishing in your own mind that – under the “right” circumstances – you’re willing to use it. So the gun got used, and a young teen is gone forever.

    Zimmerman may well have been trigger-happy. But we simply don’t know that. He may well have been looking for a confrontation. We don’t know that, either. He does not strike many as a sympathetic figure in this case. But after thousands of field cases investigated, I’ve assumed to the point of looking foolish before. What we think we know ain’t always the truth.

    A great example is a case in my area where another highly-suspect fellow found himself in deep doo-doo. ‘Everybody’ figured he was guilty as sin. Trouble was, he was telling the truth all along:

    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/07/giovanni_ramirez_exonerated.php

    In the above case, the media was deplorable in their coverage, and my take is, much of the reporting in this case is just as shameful. Referring to the dead teen as “Trayvon” while calling the shooter “Zimmerman” is a not so subtle example of manipulating public emotion. Showing photos of the teen as a 14-year old – instead of a 6’3″ man-child – is another.

    So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the shooter in this case is lying through his teeth.

    But neither would it surprise me if he indeed got jumped by a teenager who was highly irritated at being followed.

    There’s a reason we wait for the fact lady to sing.

  72. Actually mespo and Gene, you need to reread what mespo originally wrote, because it shows how mespo is incompetent and couldn’t understand what he was reading.

    “Both acknowledged experts used voice enhancing software, but different techniques, to rate the probability of the voice being Zimmerman’s at no more than 48%. A 90% match is considered scientifically reliable.”

    Mespo made the original error of calling a % match a probability and Gene, gene, gene, and you too OS, y’all forgot to catch him on that one.

    Whereas my questions, on point, to the point, and asking questions about how this shit is determined, went directly to the probability issue.

    But you’re right, it took me until now where I realized I had gone astray and that was in my initial assumption, as usual incorrect, that mespo was competent in the least.

    Article said:

    Owen told the newspaper that the software compared the screams to Zimmerman’s voice and returned a 48 percent match. He said he would expect a match of higher than 90 percent, considering the quality of the audio.

    Mespo crapped out this blog post:

    Both acknowledged experts used voice enhancing software, but different techniques, to rate the probability of the voice being Zimmerman’s at no more than 48%. A 90% match is considered scientifically reliable.

    Damn it’s happened again, this blog has gone off track before when we assumed mespo was competent.

    Gene will you go over slowly for mespo how he got it wrong? (Again)

  73. Randy, I knew I’d heard that “cry for help” before. Thank you for the chuckle.

    Dredd, thank you for that cite, that was useful and readable. An interesting aspect that I’d still like to know more about is this:

    Voice analysis thus rests on the non-likelihood that two individuals would have identical vocal cavities and identical dynamic patterns of articulator manipulation, and on the inability of an individual to change or disguise the particular voice characteristics created by his unique combination of cavities and articulator manipulative patterns. Spectrographic voice analysis involves the reflection of voice characteristics in a “spectrogram” produced by a “spectrograph.

    I believe this was a problem for DNA analysis with the first DNA tests saying, “the likelihood of two matches” is astronomically small, and then the science refined showing it was actually quite likely depending on the demogrphics of the local region, which is one reason there is a push on to collect DNA from everyone to create DNA databases.

    Similarly, what is the likelihood two people’s voice samples can have identical patterns? What research has gone into determining that number, or are we left with hocus pocus three breasted suit types telling the court and looking very serious that in their professional opinion it is highly unlikely?

  74. There’s nothing bizarre about being able to say “that’s not Zimmerman’s voice” when you can’t say exactly whose (else) it might be. I understand that perfectly. If there is not a better than 50% match-up on the various measurements, he can’t be the one who made that particular sound; there’s nothing mysterious or difficult about that.

    Even if nobody has Martin’s voice for a comparison, here’s another thing that the “NOT ZIMMERMAN” tends to prove:

    1. Zimmerman lied about what happened, during his interview with the police;

    2. Zimmerman was fitting his statement to the police that night to exonerate himself, not to provide details about what had taken place.

    3. Zimmerman was pretty glib with coming up with excuses for what took place. “I called out help help help but nobody would help me.” That’s a very planned out, transparently foolish statement, and the fact that he thought it was believable says something very negative about HIM or it says that he already KNEW the police were prepared to take whatever foolish story he told and accept it as true. (Say, perhaps, Daddy already assured him things would be all right?)

    4. He knew he could remain silent and ask for an attorney before that interview but he chose not to do that. After being beaten half to death and being shaken and now — really? To me it means he was pretty secure that his fairy tale would be good enough for the interrogators. So, “what about the cries for help?” That was ME, guys, I was yelling help help.

    SO THIS GOES TO CREDIBILITY, not just to whether or not he was being attacked.

    Had he really been caught off guard and attacked and battered half to death, he probably would not have remembered yellilng, or remembered hearing any yelling, or anything like that. 35 minutes later? He’d still be a trembling jittery freaked-out basket case.

    BTW, besides lying about the screams for help and getting found out, I think there should be a little investigation into what the cop was checking out on his jacket and in his pockets right after stowing something in the trunk of the squad car.

    So I think Zimmerman’s father, Zimmerman’s friends (who testify that they know that’s his voice) and those others all have a bit of a credibility problem now.

    Yeah, and how ’bout that cop who stowed the stuff in the trunk — is he gonna be yelling “help help” any time soon?

  75. Malisha, the apologists for Zimmerman are out in force and are grasping at straws. They have no interest in the truth, but in smokescreens. I am not wasting my time on this drivel.

  76. anon:

    I thought you had a grasp of the minutae but not the big picture. My mistake. We can debate the esoterics of probability but the degree of certainty can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1, with zero being no chance and one being a 100% chance. The audio experts match of voice similarities compares to the percentage of reliability which is translated into a number. It is exactly equal to the probability of the outcome. Thus a 48% match is exactly equal to a 48% probability where a 100% match of characrteristics would equate to a 100% probability. As the article stated a 90% match would be scientifically reliable as it would equate to a 90% probability.

    But the big picture is that two experts who know quite a bit more than both of us and working independently, arrived at the same conclusion: It’s not Zimmerman — thus shooting his down the poor, poor, pitiful me defense. Quibble away.

  77. What would a REAL head trauma look like on somebody that is like George’s ethnicity? What would George look like if you morphed his only two known photos together? Stop wondering:

  78. Zimmerman and the corrupt cops who have intentionally or unintentionally botched this case have a strong need for prison time.

    I believe that we HAVE to hold our police to a higher standard and when they screw things up this badly, they need to be punished…again whether they intentionally (string ’em up!) and unintentionally screw up.

    Same goes for politicians and others we put in control of our society’s well-being.

  79. For some strange reason my latest posting (kinda’ long) says “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”. It’s been a few hours now and it has not been approved yet. I have no idea what caused that to happen. However, if you want to peek at what I posted got to:

    1.) http://notepub.com

    2.) Log on as me: sonofthunder (I don’t care what you do there its a freebie throwaway account).

    3.) Password is: 123456

    I think you’ll really find it interesting. Especially Randy, Otteray Scribe, and Malisha please check it out…

    Eventually I guess it will show up here someday (I hope)…

  80. Sonofthunder, WordPress will only let you insert two links into a comment. Three or more gets caught in the spam filter.

  81. OK Otteray Scribe Esq: I’ll do it in pieces…

    @Randy – Here is the Seinfeld episode in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZygCA4Samg I don’t think it was a voice-over but maybe it was. How do you know? It was called “The Pledge Drive” episode.

    How do I know the old panicky woman 911 tape was actually a woman? Because not only did she have a female name (your version was blanked out) she also had a behavioral demeanor typical (or peculiar) to HER demographic.

    Auto “timing” and Otteray Scribe Esq: Randy I think your understanding of “timing” is pre-ECU/PCM era. The o-scope he refers to can be used to do the new-age “timing” (i.e. a ubiquitous word). Albeit, OS is an attorney (highly-paid no doubt? LOL) he also has probably brought his late model Beamer, Benzo, Lexus, etc. into those ‘bandits’ and paid extra for that darn o-scope technique. Am I right OS? If not then you have basis for civil litigation counselor! (LOL)

  82. @Malisha – I saw that cop stow that black jacket in cruiser #591 trunk too. However, that’s not S.O.P. for chain of custody evidence. What was it then? The black jacket’s color matched the officer’s uniform – it had a white lining. It was his rayon wind-breaker which can be seen in this FULL SPD CCTV video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxJFEx6emE – this is not the SHORT version from ABC News). He threw it in his buddy’s cruiser because they had already closed the drop-gate preventing him from going back to his own cruiser (watch the video carefully). George was wearing what he had on at (19:00) 7:00 PM hence his alibi is weak as h-e-l-l! No blood, no grass, stains, and not even wet. And BTW notice the timestamp on the SPD CCTV camera. It says 19:52 hours!!! That means he was brought to SPD (815 West 13th St) at 7:52 PM NOT 4-hours later as that liar Joe Oliver falsely said on MSNBC!!!

    The eyewitnesses who say they *saw-this or saw-that* are completley F.O.S. – big time. Austin Brown said it was too dark for ANYONE to see ANYTHING at around 7:30 PM. Sandra Mott was the only one to come out with a flashlight to ask George WTF was going on. She saw him standing over Trayvon’s lifeless corpse fiddling with his body. Sandra and her girlfriend have lots of moxy IMO. George told them to just go away and call police. The cops are dismissing their version but the killing happened in their backyard lawn at #2831. There is a concrete walkway but there is NO blood stains on it. BTW his SUV was back at the mailbox kiosk at the club house on corner of Twin Trees Ln and Retreat View Rd. It was NOWHERE near the kill-scene as George lied about!!!

    IMO it looks like George went into a fit of rage (as he has done at least 3 times in the past) when Trayvon *may or may not* have pushed George causing him to fall backwards – Trayvon’s girlfriend “DeDe” confirms this. Trayon probably backed away at least 50′ north in the grass but still at rear of 2831 Retreat View 4-5 houses from his destination (his dad’s girlfriend’s Brandi Green rented townhouse at #2611 – she’s a FL-DOC employee.).

    The mortician can be interviewed by anyone that wants to call him or visit. Ask how many entry wounds can he find (Rev. Jesse Jackson is allegedly claiming there is a 2nd back of head wound but I doubt that seriously as morticain did say there was only one in the chest). Ask whether there was any burnt flesh around the chest wound (George claims he shot him at point blank range, hence there should be powder-burns). Ask was there any powder-burns on his shirt. Ask him when he did the draining for formaldehyde-prep did he measure and weigh Trayvon (which is mortician S.O.P.)? What were the measurements? Here is his contact info: Mr. Richard Kurtz of Roy Mizell and Kurtz Funeral Home in Fort Lauderdale, FL – phone: (954) 467-3426.

  83. What would a REAL head trauma look like on somebody that is like George’s ethnicity? What would George look like if you morphed his only two known photos together? Stop wondering:

    Look at my web montage of a killer. Who looks scarier? http://i39.tinypic.com/208bbrn.jpg

    You be the judge (pun intended)…

  84. Sonofthunder,
    Nope, I am not an attorney. I said something one time about getting a law degree, but my wife put her foot down and told me that if I went back to school for another degree, I would NEED a lawyer. Since she is a MacBeth, descended from the guy who cut off the head of the king in a church, discretion seemed the better part of valor. I am a scientist, with a forensic specialty.

  85. It seems like we have something in common with our ancestors since mine helped chop off the head of one British monarch and kicked the ass of another in the American revolution. They had to leave Britain after Charles II was restored and came over here. They helped hide the regicides when the judges fled here too.

  86. OS,

    “… she is a MacBeth, descended from the guy who cut off the head of the king in a church …” in my opinion, she was the perfect woman! :)

  87. I deal with sound and hearing in a regular basis, but have never dealt with forensic audio examination. I wil explain what I know about human hearing and why this sounds difficult to claim.

    The human range of hearing is 20 Hz – 20,000 Hz. Most of speech is restricted to the range of 250 Hz to 8,000 Hz. Most of the features that make voices understandable and recognizable are things like the fundamental frequency, harmonics, formants, and nasality.

    However, the phone restricts the frequncy range to 300 Hz to 3400 Hz. Leaving out the fundamental freq and makes us rely on the harmonics alone to recognize voices (when you pick it a call and recognize a loved one saying “hello”).

    They may have some way of accouting for it, but being able to distinguish two men’s voices on a telephone is very difficult. Even with software, being able to identify some of the typical features of the voices is extemely difficult due to the phone’s frequency response and restriction.

    While I have my opinions about what may have happened in this case (especially after seeing the video of Mr. Zimmerman), I have a hard time coming to grips with the accuracy of this claim.

  88. I should clarify, matching a recorded voice or proving that the voices to not match are both very tricky when it comes to the phone. I think there are many more compelling pieces of evidence in this case.

  89. Dr. Mike, the secret is in the harmonics. No two voices are exactly alike (see the case law cited above). After a plane crash, the recorded voices are analyzed, such as conversations with ATC or the control tower. Not all airplanes have cockpit voice recorders. You should see the stress patterns in the voices of Naval aviators making night carrier landings. But even then, the technology lets the analysts know which crew member is talking on the radio.

  90. JCTheBigTree said:

    “Zimmerman and the corrupt cops who have intentionally or unintentionally botched this case have a strong need for prison time.”

    JC –

    Did you miss the fact that the Sanford investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman, and was ordered not to?

    “According to a report from ABC News’s Matt Gutman, the lead homicide investigator in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on the night of February 26ABC News sources claim that investigator Chris Serino was “instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney’s office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there was not yet enough evidence to lead to a conviction.”

    There are at least five good reasons why an “immediate arrest” is often a mistake.
    .

  91. @DrMike – You are correct about the POTS bandwidth being from 300-3400 Hertz. However, that was a few decades ago. Now with digital, cell phone, and VOIP technology the bandwidth is actually less than 250 to about 4,000 to 8,000 Hertz. They use subharmonic synthesizers to recreate 125-250 Hertz. The top end above 3,400 can also be synthesized and recreated. However, just as OS told us, the computerized voice comparison systems act like the fingerprint and facial recognition analyzers. They only need to pick certain artifacts from unsub (unidentified subject) samples to compare against an exemplar library. In audio, “fricatives” and “affricatives”can be used. Females (soprano) and Males (tenor to baritone) generally have their own frequency range too – but there is overlap.

    @Otteray Scribe – I thought you were a lawyer when you said you “used” something in court. I guess that was Pro Se?

    @MacBeth Fans – to be related to the REAL character in Shakespeare’s play (The Tragedy of Macbeth) you would have to be from the family of Mac Bethand mac Findlaich, King of Alba 1040 to 1057 AD. The play was highly inaccurate but was really enjoyed by King James.

  92. @Arthur Randolph Erb – Yes Urbanus circa 524 to circa 555 AD. King of Gwent and Glywysing. Who was the British officer who fought in Revolutionary War? I can only think of a Hessen officer who fought at Long Island Assault Landing 22 Aug 1776. But he wasn’t Welch like you.

  93. It was my mothers side of the family, Eagles and Clark who came over from England in the 1600s. Unfortunately, my fathers side was a traitor who came over from Germany and joined the British forces in Boston in 1775. He was on the other side of Bunker Hill with the Lobster backs. He evacuated Boston with the Brits and settled St Johns. in Canada.

  94. @patricparamedic – Yes I mentioned it a few posts above yours. However, we did not know the Homicide Detective’s name. He arrested George Zimmerman and cuffed him because his story did not jib.

    George lied about Trayvon getting his allegedly CONCEALED Kel-Tec 9MM pistol from his waistband holster. Also there were many illogical statements like Trayvon doubling back, hiding, and the Chevy Suburban being moved further south on Twin Trees Ln when he never moved it from the mailbox kiosk.

    So how did Trayvon double back and attack him back at the truck when Trayvon died at 2831 Retreat View backyard? The truck was exactly where George said he left it when the 1st responder arrived on scene (#1111). Also there where no offensive wounds on Trayvon’s hands. There where no defensive wounds on George. Trayvon’s chest wound showed no visible signs of point-blank firing as George lied about to Detective Serino. Also the shell casing allegedly could not be found indicating that George must have picked it up and hid it thereby concealing evidence. There also were no visible blood stains on the concrete walkway where George claimed his head was being pummeled into.

    George is technically NOT free. The Stand Your Ground Law has already been stated by it’s originator and ex-Gov Bush that it does NOT apply in George’s case. He is only released on his own recognizance and can not leave the state. He could be rearrested at any time. I predict that he will be rearrested on or shortly after 10-Apr next Tuesday. That’s of course if the FBI does not beat them to it. They ALREADY have a strong Hate Crime case based on his racist remarks to 911, his racist safety flyers, and his overall racist reaction to Trayvon’s presence on private property he was legally entitled to be on.

    Just because you have minority friends and relatives does not mean you can’t have a racist attitude toward others. Hitler committed lethal Hate Crimes against Jews when his paternal grandfather was Leopold Frankenberger of Graz Austria (an Ashkenazim Jew). His mother’s Dr. was also Jewish (Dr. Eduard Bloch of Linz – an Ashkenazim Jew).

  95. Regarding the screams for help: Selma Mora Lamilla of #2831 (rear) where Trayvon was killed heard with her live-in friend Mary Cutcher heard a “child whining”. Watch to hear them say this:

    Selma’s voice should be analyzed as the one saying “Help Help” very loud. Mary and Selma really don’t mention that; only whining.

    Then again the man across the backyard on Twin Trees Lane (allegedly “John”) the eyewitness in the dark (name is actually Timothy) was particularly distraught when he called 911. His voice also should be analyzed. There is a exemplar sample on the Internet posted 911 tapes. He’s the one that claimed he ran inside and watched from his upstairs window. He was interviewed by a TV reporter too, here:

    http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

    He says George was yelling help to him but maybe it was John (aka Tim) that was doing it and is too embarrassed to admit it now.

    Analyze That!

  96. Sonofthunder, Yes, Shakespeare was an entertainer, not a historian. The only thing he got right was that MacBeth killed Duncan I, allegedly in a kirk. The rest was just literary license.

    My wife was deeply into genealogy. She backtracked her mother’s side of the family many centuries. Obviously, there are numerous gaps, but the blood line reappears in logical places. The later MacBeths (aka Beatties & Beatons) were physicians and lawyers, mostly serving the Chieftains of Clan MacDonald. The proper pronunciation of MacBeth is “MacBEAT-eh” He was the last Gaelic speaking king of Alba (Scotland)

  97. @Otteray Scribe – Yes Shakespeare was also quite the plagiarizer too (per Christopher Bacon). A South African forensic chemist also discovered he had a liking of the New World vices as well (i.e. Powdered Coca and Hemp – aka cocaine and marijuana). He found traces of it in one of his antique pipes.

    In Scottish Gaelic Mac Bethad mac Findlaích is pronounced “MacBheatha mac Fhionnlaigh” His nickname was: “Ri Deircc” or “the Red King”.

    Tell your wife to get $99 bucks and send away to Havard U. to the National Geographics Genographics Project (http://tinyurl.com/yourdna). They will send her back a CD Video and mouth swap kit to submit back to them. They will sequence her DNA and find her ethnic matches to other people on the planet living and dead. It’s one of Dr. Spencer Wells pet projects and he has overturned long held misconceptions about very old cultures (i.e Native Americans, Middle Easterners, etc.)

  98. @Otteray Scribe – “I wish I could. I really wish I could.”

    Aye Laddy… I hear those Scots are a bit tight-fisted with the shillings! (LOL)

  99. Not anything like Connecticut Yankees. The definition of a Yankee is one who can buy from a Jew, sell to a Scot, and make a profit.

  100. @Otteray Scribe – So I hear you’re a bit of the Forensic Scientist? Well my favorite Sherlock Holmes is the famous Dr. Henry Lee. He is the chief forensic scientist in my state. I can’t wait for the FBI or SoF to call him in. Here’s his famous line (spoken in thick Mandarin accent): “Sumting’ not right wid’ George Zimmerman!”

    I’m a ORA (operational research analyst) and I have done my fair share of similar stuff. I wanted to work with Lee but I only met him once and I can’t motivate myself to be cloistered in a lab like on the TV show Bones. I like field ops.

    I think this unfortunate situation in Sanford has got all the amateur sleuths intrigued. Normally something like this would be a quick 15 seconds of News then onto American Idol. This clown intrigues us because of his obvious mendacity, his sense of entitlement, his police interference, and his rich supreme-court judge daddy trying to “fix” stuff behind the scenes. You won’t believe what he recently did to a Seminole County bureaucrat to get him to stop cooperating with the public on Internet information sharing.

    Now that FBI is canvassing the RATL neighborhood as of yesterday they will start turning over rocks on this creep. More and more the picture is coming together that George “executed” this kid out of some pent up rage he had for these – as he would say – “f’ing azzholes”. What I don’t get is SPD’s love of this moron after he kicked one of the brothers-in-blue butt back a few years ago. How he walked away from that is mind-boggling.

    Also mind-boggling is how he got a concealed-carry-permit after not having a business reason to carry, being a documented hot-head, and attacked a SPD officer. And what the hell would a ex-WESH TV employee and wannabe cop ex-security guard need to carry a 9mm semi-automatic with a 12-clip magazine? I guess he was ready for a major fire fight in little ‘ol Sanford? I’ve spent a WEEK, 1 day in Sanford once – YAWN! (LOL)
    (Picture George as Elmer Fudd with his firearm hunting: “Shhhh… I’m not hunting for wabbits… I’m hunting for f’ing coons…”)

  101. Now that is how it is done. Cool. The harmonics are easy to see. Some folks do not understand the “cones” sounding word. Cones makes zero sense in the context, despite some apologists hypothesizing that he was tripping over traffic cones. “Coons” is the only word that makes sense in this context.

    Zimmerman speaks with a Southern accent. There are also regional accents even in the deep south. You know, where ‘dog’ comes out “dawg” and ‘eggs’ sounds like “aigs.”

  102. OS,

    I’ve heard that Zimmerman is claiming that he said “goons”, but it certainly sounds like a hard “c”…

  103. anon nurse, that is a hard ‘c.’

    If you gave Zimmerman a high colonic, he would end up weighing about fifteen pounds.

  104. @Otteray Scribe – “Sonofthunder, there is nothing funny about this:”

    I hope you don’t mean that I was making fun of your wife and stuff? Or are you saying that she’s so intensely motivated on her Scottish roots that she doesn’t want to learn any more deeply than that? Please clarify…

    @Arthur Randolph Erb – “Not anything like Connecticut Yankees. The definition of a Yankee is one who can buy from a Jew, sell to a Scot, and make a profit.”

    Now that’s funny! (LOL) I think you’ll like this Elmer Fudd cartoon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79q-O6pxO58

  105. Sonofthunder,

    OS’ wife recently passed on. You may want to consider your previous comments in that proper context.

  106. SoT, did you click on the link? That is her burial urn, photo taken at her graveside service last September. That scarf is her MacBeth tartan which was buried with her. She always wore it when we went to receptions and the highland games. We had been married 55 years. I truly wish she were here to participate in the DNA studies.

  107. @Otteray Scribe – You’re absolutely right! Let’s look at some context: Black friend and ex-WESH-TV anchorman and friend of Judge Zimmerman, Joe Oliver, says George said f’ing goons as a term-of-endearment. He says his daughter said it is the new hip-hop phrase at school. No it’s not! That’s just retarded. The term GOON means a criminal thug usually associated with an Italian-American gangster. Trayvon was visibly not Italian-American.

    The use of the racial invective “coon” is clearly a White Southern term for a Black thief as Raccoons have a Black streak across their eyes like a bandit’s mask. George was born and raised in Virginia – a southern state. He now lives in a southern state KNOWN for racism in the last two Presidential Elections before Obama. This term is STILL used by white kids almost as much as the n-word. Usually from the busted-up pick-up truck tobacco-chewing crowd that likes to fish with dynamite. And also missing front teeth.

    George already says “these azzholes ALWAYS get away…” He was referring to Black kids based on his (49) 911 calls since 2011. Then almost within the same breath he delivers another angst-inspired racial invective about his Black person-of-interest. It was not TRAFFIC CONES as why would he park next to one? Who at RATL would put a traffic cone up anyway? CONE does not fit the context of his conversation with the police officer on the cell phone. And he was not speaking in any terms of endearment. He was angry.

    The letter C in COON is a basic fricative in speech (I think) and has a much different waveform that the affricative G in GOON. George is clearly setting himself up for a HATE CRIME and then executes that feeling.

  108. @Otteray Scribe – I sincerely apologize OS. I did click on the link but drew no analogy to a funerary scenario. I am so sorry to hear about your tragic loss. I too have been married for a few decades as well. I can imagine your feeling of loss of a spouse and a dear friend. 55 years is a very long time. We grow so accustomed to our beloved wive’s presence that we feel lost and empty without them. I certainly hope that you are coping with this and moving on with the rest of your life. Somehow I feel you have a lot more contributions to the world left in you.

  109. SoT, its OK. It was clear to me that you did not catch what that photo was, so clarified. I knew you meant no harm. I am coping, sort of. House sure is empty when I go home, though. Glad my youngest daughter is still living at home with me for the time being.

  110. Sonofthunder, about the jacket/packet being tossed into the trunk of the cop car, I have another puzzlement. The little “minisearch” done by cop w/o gloves on, on Zimmerman looking quite comfortable — what was THAT about? There should have been a shell casing from the bullet that killed Martin, right? Would it have been in a pocket on Zimmerman by the time the three very casual-looking officers are hobnobbing w/him in the garage? Where is it now?

  111. @Otteray Scribe – Yeah I have a boy George’s exact age living with me. If something ever happened to mom I guess he and I would just muttle through somehow. It’s good to have “supportive” kids. I guess in George’s case it’s good to have a supportive big-shot dad – huh?

    I’m afraid it’s time for Judge Zimmerman and Gladys to “cut the apron strings” and let their little “goon” blow in the breeze. There’s a cell (and African-American cellmate) at FCC Seminole awaiting George. And an FBI agent ready to put him there. If he only gets 5-years there WILL be trouble in the US urban cities that will make the 1960’s and 70’s look tame. Of course we can thank the Cold-War Russians* for most of that but this incident has “legs of it’s own”.

    *I can explain that later…

  112. My youngest is a Correctional Officer. She found a place of her own and will be moving before winter. Dunno what I will be doing then. She informed me yesterday that her supervisor has her own set of pink S&W handcuffs, and she asked me to order a pair for her. Go figure.

  113. @Malisha – That’s my point – WTF is that dam shell casing? Obviously it fell into the grass. The Kel-Tec P-11 is a semiautomatic and it does expel the shell casing out and to the left (I think). Obviously George scooped it up and then dropped it in a storm drain, threw it up on a roof or further down the walkway, or he swallowed it. SPD would have found it in a pocket search in the sally-port.

    The officer was checking George’s head because George told Detective Serino that Trayvon cold-cocked him and bashed his head into the concrete walk-way. Serino obviously saw that George was FoS and was very pissed at his attempt to lie to law enforcement. This all supposedly happened about 7:30 ish. They arrived at SPD sally-port at 7:52 PM that’s only 22 minutes! The head bashing false statement was still fresh on the officer’s mind. He just wanted to see if he could see anything. He saw NOTHING just like we see nothing in the CCTV footage.

    His nose was not broken as a 140 lbs kid does not have enough body mass to perform such a maneuver. It was too dark for Trayvon to even aim for his nose. Tray’s hands would have been bruised and they visibly were not. Haven’t you seen in Hollywood fight scenes where the guy punches another guy in the nose then goes “OW!” and shakes his hand in pain? That’s real. A person’s face is hard!

    And yes they would have used blue gloves if BLOOD borne pathogens could be present. Obviously George was NEVER bleeding as his clothing would have shown it. And 22 minutes is not long enough to start coagulating around the nose and head laceration. I mean such a traumatic injury would have to be VERY traumatic to justify shooting a visibly unarmed kid.

    Don’t worry, FBI will comb the ENTIRE are to find the casing and any other evidence that SPD missed. The only problem will be the turf-wars between State Police Florida and FBI on custody of evidence. I’m sure FBI crime scene tape is up everywhere by now. I would love to know the name of the FBI A.I.C. right now.

  114. This had to have been the sorriest “investigation” in the history of law enforcement. I expect better of a tiny county somewhere with only three deputies. Based on the “investigation” I can somewhat sympathize with the prosecutor who claimed there was not enough evidence to convict. No kidding. Did the SPD actually collect any evidence?

  115. @Otteray Scribe – Well the S&W PInk Cuffs are only less than $30 bucks (usd) – http://tinyurl.com/s-Wpinkcuffs

    Also get her a pair of thumb-cuffs. They are good backups during a prison scuffle and you have two cons making trouble. They’ll fit better in her pocket – secretly. Also have her figure out how to hide a cuff key on her person (necklace?) During a riot the cons may try and cuff the bulls (guards). She can get away if she had a secret key.

    Since she is moving out this winter tell her to play matchmaker for you. She can check with her friends and buddies or go on Eharmony.com (etc.) for you or something. Let her screen out the bow-wows, stinkers, gold-diggers, and scam-artists for you. She knows what type of lady suits you best. Just remember to stay in the present/future and not the past when dating. MAJOR turn-off for most women.

    Whatever you do DON’T become a fat couch potato malingering watching American Idol, news, and sports (and falling asleep with the remote in your hand). Get out and hob-knob with friends & family. Check out the bar scene too. You and I have a few good years left. You’d be surprised how interesting you may be to the younger crowd. You know a lot of stuff. Impress them.

  116. SoT, when I retired, I cut my work week to between forty and fifty hours. I am working on two books and have a backlog of cases. I have a well equipped shop that I don’t have time to work in. I am a member of the local radio control model airplane club, have a dozen airplanes and no time to go out and fly. I watch a grand total of less than an hour of TV a day, and only then if there is something interesting on one of the documentary channels.

    I manage to find time to keep from getting bored. It is just when I first walk into the house that it seems so empty, and I am still having trouble sleeping.

  117. @Otteray Scribe – Obviously not. SPD is not the exemplar of Police Dept’s is USA. Chief Lee stepped down because of a vote of no confidence from his men. Did you see that fat-azz tub of lard get out of Cruiser #591 in the sally-port? You see they don’t seem to have a physical fitness protocol there. Also racial sensitivity training is needed too. If they got from RATL to SPD sally-port by 7:52 they didn’t do much on-site investigation. It’s best to keep the suspect there at the site so you can do follow-up questions like “George… WTF DID YOU DO WITH THE SHELL CASING?” Then you can watch his eyes go to his right when he says: “I dunno…” (lying!)

  118. Most traffic stops take more time than this crew did at the crime scene. FSM have mercy on us.

  119. @Otteray Scribe – Yeah I feel your pain bro… House feeling empty is huge. I would get a pet like a cat or a dog or both. They usually do enough shenanigans when you come home anyway. I found a $60 high-tech gadget on Amazon that is a electronic acupuncture machine for your wrist. Guaranteed to knock you out and get some good REM Stage sleep.

    Wow she is a cutie-pie! Is she IFR rated yet? Looks like a a rebuilt Sopwith Camel or something? Looks like she could use more time at the range though. Most of those rounds were center mass (kinda’). Tell her to control her breathing and squeeze not pull.

    I wonder what George’s target’s look like (LOL – sorry).

    Is that you in the background with te black slicker on?

  120. Nope, that’s not me–I was the one taking pictures that day. As for her flying, she has not soloed yet. I am IFR/multi-engine rated though. That plane is a 1942 Stearman with a 450 horsepower P&W on the front. It belongs to a dear friend of ours, an old A-26 driver from Vietnam who flew heavies for Southwest after the war.

    The pic on the range is at the Sheriff’s department. The weapon was a Ruger .38 revolver that she had never seen before the range officer handed it to her. Sights were off–the revolver had been knocking around in a box with other weapons. The first five shots were high and to the left. Sixth shot overcorrected to the right, into the shoulder area of the target. Next twelve rounds into center mass. Someone joked that she was counting coup with that hole in the middle of the head.

  121. Oh god, it’s just too perfect.

    Here’s Jeralyn Merritt, TalkLeft.

    READ IT TO DISCOVER:

    A) THE FBI THINKS ITS BULLSHIT
    B) TOM OWEN THE EXPERT HERE IS DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH THE COMPANY THAT MAKES THE SOFTWARE HE USED, EASY VOICE BIOMETRICS
    C) THE OTHER EXPERT, ED PRIMEAU, THINKS TOM IS FULL OF SHIT

    Professor Turley is a hell of a law professor and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude for his wisdom, sense of humor, courage, insights.

    But his blog commenters are arrogant total dipshits ignorant dumbasses.

    Looking at you Mespo, Gene and OS. Looking at you.

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/3/03733/45115

    How topical. The annual Voice Biometrics Conference begins today in New York. This year’s theme: Benchmarks, Use Cases and Real World Experience.

    Registration is $699., but maybe they have media passes available. One interesting talk may be that of Alexey Khitrov, of the Speech Technology Center (a “gold” sponsor of the conference, its program is SpeechPro):

    Reality Check #1: Lessons Learned from Forensics and Law Enforcement

    What other programs do law enforcement use for speaker recognition? [More…]

    Agnitio, one of the conference’s platinum sponsors, touts its Batvox and Asis programs. From reviews, they seem to be in a lead position.

    Here’s an interesting 2009 declassified FBI report on voice biometrics.
    The report notes investigatory voice biometrics may not be ready for courts –at least federal ones that use Daubert as the standard for admission of expert testimony:

    The first agreement was on the meaning of the phrase – “investigatory voice biometrics”. The first word of this phrase, “investigatory”, was taken to encompass the use of speaker recognition technology in criminal and intelligence investigations and analysis.

    In US Federal Courts, the admissibility of scientific evidence is determined by the presiding judge, who is guided by Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 104 [2] and 702 [3], among others. FRE 702 notes the Daubert Criteria, which states the following factors must be met: the technique has been tested and subjected to peer review and publication; has a known error rate and standards controlling its use; is generally accepted in the scientific community [4].

    The Symposium committee members believe that automatic speaker recognition technology has not yet reached the maturity to satisfy the Daubert Criteria…Future research and evaluation are needed to advance speaker recognition technology to satisfy scientific-evidence admissibility requirements for the US Federal Courts

    Also interesting:

    In addition, there is a common consensus about the uncertainty of the error rates of the speaker recognition performance when operating under variations due to the speaker (e.g., stress) and variations not due to the speaker (e.g., channel distortion).

    On p. 14 (its numbering, the report talks about the process for comparing a 9/11 call to a sample of a known person:

    4.2 FBI Scenario 1: One-to-one Comparison

    The Forensic Audio, Video, and Image Analysis Unit (FAVIAU), Operational Technology Division of the FBI, will receive a request from one of the field offices for a voice comparison examination to be conducted between an unknown voice on a 911 call and the known voice of a subject on a recording obtained by law enforcement officers.

    …Currently automated comparison is performed in criminal cases solely for research purposes and only if the evidence is deemed sufficient for such an examination.

    Another symposium to address current state of voice biometrics was held in 2010. The declassified report is here but its very technical.

    Here is the latest draft (March 12, 2012) of the Investigatory Voice Biometrics Committee Report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). On page 50-52 (their numbering) they discuss intelligibility, emotional state and impairment, and speaker styles (crying, chanting, etc.) and “vocal effort.”

    Here’s the 2011 report, National Biometrics Challenge from the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It says on page 14 (it doesn’t allow cut and paste):

    In spite of the advances made in speaker verification since 2006, speaker recognition as a biometric application is still faced with many challenges including the lack of a standard measurement for acceptance, difficulties with the capture of a consistent voice sample at enrollment and the performance issues associated with the lack of a comparable recording environments between the enrollment and the test sample.

    Here is the FBI’s latest on voice biometrics. As of 2008, they didn’t think voice biometrics was Daubert-ready for federal courts, the standard it strives to meet.

    Does law enforcement use EasyVoice Biometrics? According to its website, the software was just released and didn’t start shipping until March, 2012. (It costs $5,000.) I was wondering how Tom Owen (whom I have used as an expert in the past and found to be quite professional) got an advance copy since he testified at a court trial in January that he had used the program the year before. Turns out, according to Whosis, he is the administrative contact for the EasyVoice Biometrics website. If he has a proprietary or financial interest in the program, or helped develop it (which I don’t know that he does or did) should he have disclosed it to the Sun Sentinel?

    As for the Connecticut state court’s admission of his biometric voice analysis at the prior murder trial, it should be noted that the defendant in that case was pro se, without a lawyer, and likely didn’t know how to effectively challenge it. Also, it’s unclear how much the analysis factored into the jury’s verdict since there was DNA evidence incriminating the defendant. Her DNA was found in a blood stain on a bathroom sink handle in the victim’s condo.
    Jurors on Friday morning asked the court to replay testimony from Michael Bourke, a supervising DNA analyst in the state’s forensic crime lab. Bourke testified the estimated frequency of someone other than Davalloo leaving that DNA profile on the sink handle was 1 in 8.5 million.

    Also, the 911 case in Davaloo did not involve comparing a scream to spoken words, although I’m not sure it that matters.
    On the 911 recordings, a woman tells a call-taker that a man attacked her neighbor on Harbor View Drive. The call was made from a pay phone at a fast-foot restaurant on Shippan Avenue.

    The second expert hired by the media to opine on the screaming in the background of the 911 call in the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman shooting investigation pooh-poohed 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.

    Hopefully whatever expert the state uses will come up with more of an explanation than Primeau did for saying the voice was not Zimmerman’s:

    “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.”

    On his own website, Primeau cautions that his opinion is not for legal purposes.

    As an audio forensic expert I want to make clear that this is not formal voice identification and not meant for legal purposes.

    He also may not have done a forensic comparison at all. He says:

    If I were to conduct a formal voice identification test, here are the steps I would take:

    ….4. Ask for a speech exemplar from George Zimmerman screaming for help

    5. Conduct a voice identification test.

    So unlike Mr. Owen, Pimeau thinks a test should compare a scream to a scream. Since he doesn’t have an exemplar of Zimmerman screaming to compare to the 911 call with the scream in the background, he can’t do a test the way he thinks it should be done.

    It will be interesting to see whether the State’s Attorney in Florida retains experts who use a biometric program to analyze the scream in the Trayvon Martin case, or goes with more traditional methods of speaker recogniton. And whether the experts they do retain are able to draw any conclusion at all as to who screamed.

    In the meantime, maybe the case will be brought up at the biometrics conference tomorrow and there will be some tweeting about it.

  122. This is the sound of anon changing his pants because he peed them a little laughing so hard at OS, Mespo, and Gene.

    SKLISHITTY SKLOSHITTY SKLISHITTY SKLOSHITTY SHKLOORT THURCH SHMUZORFT SKLiSHHHHHHHHK SHMUZORFT SKLiSHHHHHHHHK

    Okay, so I peed my pants a lot laughing at you dumbass jokers.

  123. anon:

    “This is the sound of anon changing his pants because he peed them a little laughing so hard at OS, Mespo, and Gene.

    *****************************
    Don’t know about the others, but it comes as no surprise to me that you are prone to peeing on yourself. You demonstrate that trait with full vigor on most every comment. I think there is therapy for that. Carry on.

  124. Says the guy who I have repeatedly shown to be wrong time and time again.

    Maine Mammal Act protects whales! Beautiful. Love it.

    And shit, my chair is wet again.

  125. mespo, regarding to the few comments immediately above, does the term non compos mentis come to mind?

    Or should we simply go with the more popular term, “batshit crazy?”

  126. Gene H:

    Tom Owen is the chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence and Ed Primeau is a registered investigator for the American College of Forensic Examiners. Both are what is known in the legal business as “expert witnesses”. I’m perfectly comfortable leaving the choice of software to two forensic professionals.

    http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/easyvoicebiometrics.com

    http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/easyvoicebiometrics.com (new window)

    Registrant:
    Owen Forensic Services, LLC
    PO Box 189
    Colonia, New Jersey 07067
    United States

    Registered through: JasonHunter Design
    Domain Name: EASYVOICEBIOMETRICS.COM
    Created on: 08-May-11
    Expires on: 08-May-13
    Last Updated on: 16-Feb-12

    Administrative Contact:
    Owen, Thomas owlinvestigationstsacmocnet
    Owen Forensic Services, LLC
    PO Box 189
    Colonia, New Jersey 07067
    United States
    (732) 574-9672 Fax —

    Technical Contact:
    Owen, Thomas owlinvestigationstsacmocnet
    Owen Forensic Services, LLC
    PO Box 189
    Colonia, New Jersey 07067
    United States
    (732) 574-9672 Fax

    Damn, need a new adult diaper. Fourth I’ve used in the last hour because of this thread. Need to stop stopping at Buffalo Wild Wings on the way home from the brothel. Anyway, Depends has my back.

  127. anon, I will be sure to write a note to those Federal judges who allowed the evidence in under both Frye and Daubert. They need to know that in your less than humble opinion they are wrong. I am sure they will appreciate your input.

  128. Anyway Gene, I’m glad you trust this certified expert witness to use his own totally bullshit software package that he clearly does nothing but he uses bogusly prop up his dumbass opinions.

    Don’t you love the press release at his own site:

    “The ability of Easy Voice Biometrics to eliminate suspects on under cover recordings and terrorists “live” recordings shortcuts the elimination process for Law Enforcement and saves hundreds of hours while doing it. They can then focus their time on stronger voice matches” says Tom Owen, one of this country’s foremost authorities on Audio Forensics.

    ” In a recent murder trial I (State of CT. v. Shelia Davalloo) I was able identify Ms. Davalloo as the person making a 911 call in the vicinity of where the murder happened.” I was not able to do this in 2004 because of the quality of the tape. In 2012, Easy Voice Biometrics was able to identify her voice; even with a less than perfect 911 tape. She was convicted.”

    Where he identifies himself as one of the country’s formost authorities on Audio Forensics, BUT FAILS TO DISCLOSE HIS ROLE AS OWNER OF THE SOFTWARE?

    Gene, Mespo, OS, DON’T YOU THINK YOU OWN Ms. DAVALLOO YOUR EFFORTS TO FREE HERE THANKS TO THE CLEARLY FRAUDULENT TESTIMONY OF TOM OWENS, EXPERT WITNESS?

  129. “Otteray Scribe
    1, April 3, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    anon, I will be sure to write a note to those Federal judges who allowed the evidence in under both Frye and Daubert. They need to know that in your less than humble opinion they are wrong. I am sure they will appreciate your input.”

    Hah you clown, don’t include my opinion, INCLUDE THE FBI’S 2009 OPINION:

    “In US Federal Courts, the admissibility of scientific evidence is determined by the presiding judge, who is guided by Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 104 [2] and 702 [3], among others. FRE 702 notes the Daubert Criteria, which states the following factors must be met: the technique has been tested and subjected to peer review and publication; has a known error rate and standards controlling its use; is generally accepted in the scientific community [4].

    The Symposium committee members believe that automatic speaker recognition technology has not yet reached the maturity to satisfy the Daubert Criteria…Future research and evaluation are needed to advance speaker recognition technology to satisfy scientific-evidence admissibility requirements for the US Federal Courts”

    and

    “Here’s the 2011 report, National Biometrics Challenge from the Office of Science and Technology Policy. It says on page 14 (it doesn’t allow cut and paste):

    In spite of the advances made in speaker verification since 2006, speaker recognition as a biometric application is still faced with many challenges including the lack of a standard measurement for acceptance, difficulties with the capture of a consistent voice sample at enrollment and the performance issues associated with the lack of a comparable recording environments between the enrollment and the test sample.”

    OS, this shit was clear to the casual observer of Tom Owen’s website. All you had to do was read it and think critically. You’re pissed I did just that. You should be pissed at yourself.

    Instead you are up to your ears in charging courts for your bogus testimony of “sciencey” woo that you concoct and backup for your wallet’s pleasure.

    There was no way that you would be able to read Owen’s and do anything other than dumbly go along.

  130. Oooh, that forensic scientist expert witness has a nice suit and has softwares and a machine that goes ping. I haz to believe him.

  131. Hey OS,

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12589#description


    Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States:
    A Path Forward

    Authors:

    Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council
    Committee on Science, Technology, and Law (CSTL)
    Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics (CATS)
    Policy and Global Affairs (PGA)
    Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS)

    OCR for page 47
    Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward and studies in the published literature. In testimony before the committee, it was clear that some members of the forensic science community will not concede that there could be less than perfect accuracy either in given laboratories or in specific disciplines, and experts testified to the committee that disagreement remains regarding even what constitutes an error. For example, if the limitations of a given technology lead to an examiner declaring a “match” that is found by subsequent technology (e.g., DNA analysis) to be a “mismatch,” there is disagreement within the forensic science community about whether the original determination constitutes an error.32 Failure to acknowledge uncertainty in findings is common: Many examiners claim in testimony that others in their field would come to the exact same conclusions about the evidence they have analyzed. Assertions of a “100 percent match” contradict the findings of proficiency tests that find substantial rates of erroneous results in some disciplines (i.e., voice identification, bite mark analysis).33,34 As an example, in a FBI publication on the correlation of microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons, the authors found that even competent hair examiners can make significant errors.35 In this study, the authors found that in 11 percent of the cases in which the hair examiners declared two hairs to be “similar,” subsequent DNA testing revealed that the hairs did not match, which refers either to the competency or the relative ability of the two divergent techniques to identify differences in hair samples, as well as to the probative value of each test. The insistence by some forensic practitioners that their disciplines employ methodologies that have perfect accuracy and produce no errors has hampered efforts to evaluate the usefulness of the forensic science disciplines. And, although DNA analysis is considered the most reliable forensic tool available today, laboratories nonetheless can make errors working with either nuclear DNA or mtDNA—errors such as mislabeling samples, losing samples, or misinterpreting the data. Standard setting, accreditation of laboratories, and certification of individuals aim to address many of these problems, and although many laboratories have excellent training and quality control programs, even 32 N. Benedict. 2004. Fingerprints and the Daubert standard for admission of scientific evidence: Why fingerprints fail and a proposed remedy. Arizona Law Review 46:519; M. Houck, Director of Forensic Science Initiative, West Virginia University. Presentation to the committee. January 25, 2007. 33 D.L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M.J. Saks, and J. Sanders. 2002. Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. St. Paul, MN: Thompson/West. 34 C.M. Bowers. 2002. The scientific status of bitemark comparisons. In: D.L. Faigman (ed.). Science in the Law: Forensic Science Issues. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. 35 M. Houck and B. Budowle. 2002. Correlation of microscopic and mitochondrial DNA hair comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47(5):964-967; see also Bromwich, op. cit.

    Girl look at that body
    Girl look at that body
    Girl look at that body
    I work out

  132. anon, you have me confused with someone else. You appear to think I care about your nonsensical babbling and will take the time to read your copy and paste stuff. I am not that person you seem to think I am. To put it bluntly, I don’t really care what you think.

  133. With all respect Mespo, you owe it to Professor Turley and his readers to update your post with links to Jeralyn Merritt’s and Tom Maguire’s posts.

    Hey Otteray Scribe, I’m beginning to wonder if I went a bit over the line. Just joshing with you dude, breaking your balls a little, we’re still buddies, right dude?

  134. mespo,

    Non mentis gets my vote. I know he’s not talking to me unless he’s mistaken me for someone who cares what lunatics think.

  135. “I agree. I simply delete when I see his name since I have no time for fools.”

    And that’s the tough problem of the world.

    You get sucked in by OS, who the FBI shows here to be completely demented and fraudulent, and by Mespo who has repeatedly demonstrated his own incomptence and does so once more, and by Gene H, who tells us how much he too relies on the nice suits,

    But when the hacker with a critical brain calls out the 1, 2, 3s that are obvious to all critical thinkers, you find yourself unable to recognize truth, and go by the cover of the book, the cover that the frauds taught you how to respect.

    I read the same newspaper articles, did the primary research, used by knowledge and experience, and called this out as bullshit while the rest of you gesticulated madly in its properties of transubstantiation.

    Arthur Randolph Erb, it might behoove you to listen more often to the fools and think twice about those you trust.

    The self-claimed experts OS, mespo, Gene clearly got it 100% wrong in this case, and the so-called fool, once more, was dead balls on accurate.

    Think about that, think about your statement.

  136. “Gene H.
    1, April 3, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    mespo,

    Non mentis gets my vote. I know he’s not talking to me unless he’s mistaken me for someone who cares what lunatics think.”

    That’s right Gene, instead of acknowledging your error, learning, apologizing, and moving on, you stick your fingers in up your ass, slide them past your face and into your ears and shout “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.

    Bravo!

  137. Otteray Scribe,

    You’re right, there are many harmonic components to the indenfication of voicing (the primary being the fundamental frequency), however, many of those change significantly when yelling or whispering. Then, on top of that, you have the restruction of the phone frequencies (which some of the harmonics would fall into that range)

    Those two confounding factors would making matching or proving a non-match more difficult.

    I think there are many other more compelling factors in the case, however, this analysis isn’t going to sway much one way or the other.

    I apologize for my very late response.

  138. Dr. Mike, you are correct on those points of course. From a forensic analysis point, they do not need a 100% match to make an ID. In that respect it can be considered analogous to a fingerprint. Contrary to popular belief and what you see on TV dramas, most crime scene fingerprints are not “pure,” but more commonly smudged or partials. If enough points are present, a match can be made. Same with voiceprints.

    It is far easier to rule somebody out than to positively ID a voice. That is what appears to have happened here. Zimmerman did not come close to have enough matching points on the audio that has been released. So, no match likely, to a reasonable scientific certainty. The FBI lab will do a much more thorough job than that which has been done so far. Best policy is to just wait and see what comes from the investigation.

  139. Agreed, I think many more other compelling points will be provided.

    I don’t want TV crime dramas so I wasn’t drawing from that experience. I interjected because my undergraduate degree is in speech pathology and my grad work is in the field of audiology and hearing science.

  140. Dr. Mike, I don’t watch TV crime dramas for two reasons. First, I don’t have the time to waste on the one-eyed monster. Second, the crime dramas on the TeeVee machine bear as much resemblance to real crime investigations as “Doogie Howser, MD” did to the real practice of medicine.

  141. I’ve got a friend who does work in a lab. He watched the crime shows just to point out everything that wrong with what they do. I would vebture a guess that it has taken about 10 years off the end of his life! I imagine he’ll let it go one day. I could only get that riled up if I made myself listen to Rush.

  142. DrMike, everyone has an all-thumbs day. Some suffer from foot-in-mouth disorder as well. Others have rectal inversion problems. Some poor souls have all three at the same time.

  143. “DrMike, everyone has an all-thumbs day. Some suffer from foot-in-mouth disorder as well. Others have rectal inversion problems. Some poor souls have all three at the same time.”

    Speaking of mespo, I still think he owes Professor Turley and Professor Turley’s readers an update with the new information regarding the FBI and NRC calling bullshit on voice identification and the fact that “expert” Tom Owens has a financial conflict of interest and there are plenty of other experts saying what Owens (and Primeau) did was irresponsible unbelievable woo.

    But if he wants to duck and run, just post crap and never admit his mistake, well I guess the proper title for him is “Attorney Mespo”.

  144. OS,

    Rectal Inversion, or butt hoovering, has VERY LUCKILY not been an issue for me. At least not so far. Although, I don’t think I’d ever admit it if it was.

  145. anon:

    if I ever need you to edit something for me, I’ll just scrape you off my shoe and put you in front of a keyboard. No one’s calling BS except you and your storm front cronies. Attack away. Your gun-happy pal will be facing the consequences soon enough.

  146. I just heard Zimmermans new attorney on the news….. I may not agree with his position… Nor do I know his record…..but he is very credible… Win or not in this case… I was impressed… His name is Hal Ulrig…. He seems like a good strategic move in this case….

  147. AY:

    Even the best lawyer can’t change facts. Ask Roy Black. If they prove to be as the reports have shown, it will be hard for a jury not to convict Zimmerman of manslaughter.

  148. Mespo,

    The facts are what they are….. And if facts were the single determination in assessing guilt or being judged guilty by a jury….. The OJ may have had a different fate….. It’s all in the spin to the jury…. And this guy seemed like he could sell an esikimo ice cube trays to go in his freezer…..

  149. “anon:

    if I ever need you to edit something for me, I’ll just scrape you off my shoe and put you in front of a keyboard. No one’s calling BS except you and your storm front cronies. Attack away. Your gun-happy pal will be facing the consequences soon enough.”

    Check it out, Mark Esposito, Barrister, Well Known Homophobe, Expert on Maine Mammals, is calling Jeralyn Merritt the well known liberal defense lawyer a storm fronter.

    And of course, a lying weasel attorney like Mark Esposito can’t find a single comment in here from me ever making a comment defending either Zimmerman or stormfront.

    It’s just the usual bullshit unethical attacks one can commonly hear from any cheap dime storm lawyer.

    Well here’s some more, and yes, it’s from Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller,

    Voice forensics experts cast doubt on Orlando Sentinel analysis of Trayvon Martin 911 tape and some blogger they publish that goes by the name “Gucci Little Piggy”

    I mean read this Mark Esposito, and tell me you have any confidence in Tom Owen’s analysis:

    Dr. James Wayman, a San Jose State University expert in the field of speech science, told The Daily Caller that he questions the grounds on which Owen based his analysis.

    Wayman also said he would be willing to testify against the admissibility of Owen’s findings on the grounds that they don’t meet the criteria required for evidence in federal courts.

    “There is no history of, or data on, the comparison of a questioned scream to a known speech sample,” Wayman said.

    The problem, he said, is that the two voice samples were recorded in difficult acoustic conditions over different cell phones.

    “Even if we were to have Mr. Zimmerman recreate the scream under identical conditions with the same cell phone,” Wayman explained, “it would be difficult to attribute the scream to him without a sample of a similar scream from Mr. Martin under the same conditions. This is clearly not possible.”

    Reached for comment, Owen told TheDC that he has conducted his own study — “The Owen Study” — of more than 400 different pitches, screams, and voice disguises. The study is unpublished.

    He explained that he has attempted, without success, to obtain a “voice exemplar” from Zimmerman, consisting of recordings of both his speaking voice and a scream.

    And Wayman, he said, “assumes that the voice software is not able to make a determination on each voice independently.”

    Wayman fired back in a later email exchange. “There is no accepted standard regarding metrics for voice comparisons,” he insisted, “either if done forensically or using automated comparison software.

    ‘Naïve’ voice recognition

    The Sentinel also contracted with Ed Primeau, a trained audio engineer and registered investigator whose expert testimony has been used in dozens of criminal court proceedings. Primeau used a more intuitive approach to determine that Zimmerman was not the person heard screaming on the 911 call.

    “That’s a young man screaming,” Primeau told the Sentinel.

    Comparing the human voice to a symphony full of varying timbres, Primeau wrote on his blog that the “male voice yelling for help … cracks like teen male’s does when going through puberty.”

    Dr. Philip Rose of the Australian National University told TheDC that scientific experts refer to Primeau’s method as “naïve voice recognition.” His influential 2002 book Forensic Speaker Identification draws a major distinction between naïve and “technical forensics” voice recognition.

    “Naïve voice recognition is so prone to error that it is acknowledged that it is worthless as evidence,” Rose said via email.

    A forensic expert’s job, he said, is to assess the strength of evidence, not to estimate the probability of a hypothesis. And “the value of the evidence depends … on the similarity of the samples.”

    In a properly conducted analysis, he told TheDC, “you would still have to do the comparison using screamed and phone samples, with many speakers.”

    One voice authentication expert whose work is commercial in nature told TheDC that screaming, stress, and a recording’s audio quality can “wreak havoc” on voice biometric software and its ability to interpret data.

    And speaking of Owen’s findings, another industry insider said that “a legitimate biometrics expert would likely refute the contentions” and suggests that these were “incendiary publicity plays.””

    If you had any scrap of integrity, or intellectual honesty, or even just an honest sense of “oh, snap, I’ve been told”, you would fess up and admit it, and do the right thing and update the post and apologize to Professor Turley and his readers.

    Seriously Mark, you’re an idiot.

  150. FWIW Mark, it does seem confusing to me too.

    Gene H. is clearly a ton stupider than you are, and yet it’s you that keeps getting caught in these enormously embarrassing gaffes, and not Gene.

    Gene H. does repeatedly get caught claiming expertise only to be found out a liar, but you’re the one that most often gets the blog post 180 degrees wrong.

    It’s interesting.

  151. Someone really needs to look over any conviction that Tom Owen played a role in and file whatever habeas paperwork is necessary to re-open the trial.

    You lawyers were played, you know it, and you loved every dollar of it.

  152. Finally, I defy anyone to look at what I’ve posted here and put me into the Storm Front camp.

    Rather, look at the rush to judgment of all the self-claimed putative civil rights defending liberals and decide for yourself which of us, Mark Esposito or me is more likely to come for you in the middle of the night rushing you off to the boxcars.

    Stormfront, Mark?

    The evening of Passover you is when you go Godwin calling me a storm fronter because I pointed out your analysis was flawed and your rush to conviction was based on nothing. You give lawyers, and attorneys all around the world a huge smile Mark when you represent them so.

    Except for the minority of ethical ones.

  153. anon:

    You’re particularly blustery and verbose tonight and full of macho vinegar. You’re also bouncing from topic to topic– me, Gene, habeas peititions, Tom Owen, even bowtied Tucker Carlson– you’re just full of disjointed thought, though with you it’s de rigueur.

    Careful there someone might get the impression that we pay any attention to you. Get the staff to tighten those bindings won’ t you — and get more consistent dosing? I’m sensing a relapse.

  154. bdaman:

    Tom Owen says Zimmerman said “punks” but we know per anon that’s not right since absolutely everything Tom says is wrong. Must be “coons” then.

  155. Bdaman,

    Exactly, and here’s how it works.

    The seed of doubt that ruins. Years later, I still find it easy to associate Richard Jewel as the Olympic Bomber, even though we know it was Eric Rudolph.

    Ruining the reputation with smears based on no evidence or falsified evidence. I’ve had to deal with that during my divorce. Crap the ex-wife threw around to distort the courts orders.

    And Mespo who we both know, knows better, runs with it, because Mespo believes the ends justifies the means. And Mespo is convinced it’s okay to do this, because he is the good liberal.

  156. Mark you and everyone at this blog who felt/feels Zimmerman was/is a racist got duped. A man who protested by going to black churches and putting out flyers to demand justices for the beating of a black homeless person by a police officer is not a racist in my book.

    How bout in yours?

  157. Hey Mark, that’s a good example of courtroom logic.

    I point out that Tom Owen is a crank and a quack distributing woo and getting paid for it by greedy lawyers who look to him to prop up their shady cases. I demonstrate that with the testimony of other voice experts backed up by lawyers in the field.

    You go from there to saying my demonstrations if true means that if Tom Owen says the sky is red, it must be plaid and therefore it means what I’ve shown can’t be true.

    Nice try counselor.

  158. mespo727272 1, March 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    OS:

    I heard what I heard and I know what I heard. if the Grand Jury hears what I heard, I suggest Ol’ Watchman George dress up in his Sunday best, bow gentlemanly from the waist and kiss his racist ass goodbye.

  159. Lottakatz followed Mespo with a more ethical approach.

    lottakatz 1, March 20, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    OS, The alleged racial epithet was discussed on the Ed Show tonight.

    Mespo, I want that tape cleaned up professionally by some unimpeachable technical lab and exactly what was said nailed down tight. This may be the lynch-pin aspect of the tape that allows no wiggle room regarding DOJ prosecution so I want it done with no way to challenge it if it was indeed a racial epithet. What I believe I heard (which is the same as what you heard) is not what gets the job done legally. I figure ‘the system’ will work as hard as it can to sweep this back under the rug if it’s possible to do so and I’d rather that not happen, I’d rather this be the start of some serious reform so I don’t want any errors to mess it up.

  160. I don’t believe Lottakatz is a lawyer, though perhaps she is.

    I definitely know Mark Esposito is a lawyer, though perhaps he shouldn’t be.

  161. Bdaman:

    I think Zimmerman said “coons” still, his claims of charity to African-Americans notwithstanding. My point is simply that anon is one of those wackos for whom absolute consistency is essential. He can only see in stark shades of black and white with a keen emphasis on white. When shown to be the fool 9as he so often is) he lashes out with the name-calling, irrelevant criticisms, and plain old fashioned mindless venom. Probably a reaction to his meds, but unworthy of reply regardless.

    I thought I wold make an exception for this warm-hearted soul in this one instance, since he so completely disparages acknowledged expert Tom Owen. Just for my own satisfaction, I thought I’d tweak his tender sensibilities to show that he can’t have it both ways. As you can see he’s frothing at the mouth to say he can, but most reasonable folks see him for the putrid intellect he so obviously is. His vitriolic rant is as predictable as stink on garbage but not quite as interesting.

    On the other hand, even in your contrariness you will listen to opposing evidence without resort to the argumentation skills of your typical fifth grader. That puts you on a plane with lots of other opposing posters here.

    I’ll make final judgments when all the evidence is in, but for now, ol’ gun-toting Georgy Boy looks good for a manslaughter on an unarmed teen rap to me or in the alternative terminal wussiness.

    Not sure for a man which is worse.

  162. Bdaman:
    We have argued much about some things, but we seem to definitely be on the same page here. Well said. Now all we can wait to see if the wheels of justice do what they are supposed to do.

  163. Mespo, there is of course an enormous difference between my opinion buttressed by Jeralyn Merritt, Tom Maguire and the FIB that the evidence shows Tom Owens is a quack, a wacko, a sham artist with none of the ability he touts, and your position that even now he is believable and you have no need to alert your readers, or Professor Turley’s readers that there are significant problems in Tom Owen’s claims.

    That is not some demand for absolute certainty on my part.

    That is your arrogance, and hubris over-ruling what you know is the right thing to do.

    On top of that when that is pointed out to you, you call me, a NAZI sympathizer.

    That is not some demand for absolute certainty on my part.

    Nor is that your gently tweaking tender sensibilities.

    What that is is your play to garner the sympathy and play the victim card when all who read here can see that all I have done is shown how Tom Owens claims are bullshit.

    It is offensive in the extreme that you would make this NAZI connection tonight of all nights, then not back off, then not apologize for it, then try to whitewash it.

  164. This is of course, exactly the same behavior you showed when you made homophobic attacks against Marcus Bachmann and refused to acknowledge that or apologize for that either.

  165. Still peeing on yourself tonight I see, anon. You really are a variety show with one act, but its getting boring. Keep talking and cutting and pasting and I’ll keep yawning.

    Let’s get to the trial and we’ll see what 12 folks who matter think — not some boob who thinks a courtroom is where the king lives. Ever seen one?

  166. Mark, if you had any sense of ethical responsibility, if you weren’t a sociopath with the badge of a lawyer, you would update this post, and write a new post this weekend, discussing the science behind voice identification and quoting from the posts from Jeralyn Merritt, and Tom Maguire, and “Gucci Little Piggy” referencing the FBI reports, the NRC findings, and the statements of the other voice identification experts quoted in the various articles. And then you would thank me for the links.

    Since you are the canonical arrogant, cowardly, gutless, pompous attorney, I will not be holding my breath.

    I hope you do a better job for your clients than you do to Professor Turley’s readers.

  167. OS,

    What do you call a pervasive pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image and emotions combined with impulsive behavior, intense and often irrational anger, a significant and persistent unstable self-image or sense of self and transient paranoid thoughts or severe dissociative symptoms?

  168. OS:

    I suspect we’ll see a claim reasonable fear for his safety caused by an avalanche of Skittles and iced tea. I understand that, even now, Zimmerman, anon, and the new lawyer are trying to find an expert in confectionery inertia.

  169. Gene H:

    “What do you call a pervasive pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image and emotions combined with impulsive behavior, intense and often irrational anger, a significant and persistent unstable self-image or sense of self and transient paranoid thoughts or severe dissociative symptoms?”

    *********************

    Oooo…Oooo… Mr. Gene let me answer! I was just in the field with one.

  170. Gene, I think you already know what I call people like that. I have interviewed enough death row inmates to recognize that pattern.

  171. That new lawyer must really want to emasculate his client in front of the public. Oh, my! The 140 pound unarmed kid got the best of my 250 pound self and shook me. Candy ass.

    Shaken Baby? Baby Huey, maybe.

  172. Damn. You guys scared him off. I’ll have a dickens of a time finding another one as crazy as that one..

    Gotta go catch some Masters highlights. My money is on Boom Boom.

  173. Mespo, do you realize that 250 pounds is exactly the same as the playing weight of both Alex Karras and Dick Butkus?

  174. “What do you call a pervasive pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image and emotions combined with impulsive behavior, intense and often irrational anger, a significant and persistent unstable self-image or sense of self and transient paranoid thoughts or severe dissociative symptoms?”

    A member of the bar.

  175. You’re a lot of things, anon, but a lawyer isn’t one of them. The rest of it does fit you pretty well though. Congratulations! Recognizing you have a problem is the first step in getting treatment.

  176. Hey OS,

    Do they allow anyone that has taken a course in how to fly a plane, fly a plane?

    Or anyone that says they have good eyesight drive a car?

    It should be pretty easy to devise a double-blinded test that can easily determine if a voice identification expert witness has any real ability to identify voices. Same thing with Tom Owen’s machine.

    Not sure how many people are in the voice identification industry, but I bet you could charge a bundle for their taking the test and being certified by your organization.

    Screw Frye and Daubert, if you can show that Tom Owens can correctly identify 93 out of 100 voice samples in a double blind study devised by you and some PhD experts, what court wouldn’t allow that in?

    And, if you come up with such a test, what court would allow anyone in that wouldn’t take it?

  177. OS Thanks but Zimmerman didn’t weigh 250.

    NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman Tape
    By BRIAN STELTER

    NBC News has fired a producer who was involved in the production of a misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

    The person was fired on Thursday, according to two people with direct knowledge of the disciplinary action who declined to be identified discussing internal company matters. They also declined to name the fired producer. A spokeswoman for NBC News declined to comment.

    http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/nbc-fires-producer-of-misleading-zimmerman-tape/

  178. MES

    CNN Walks It Back: Oops, Zimmerman Didn’t Say ‘Coon,’ He Said It Was ‘Cold’!

    NBC isn’t the only network slinking away from overcooking the case against George Zimmerman’s alleged racism. On the March 21 edition of Anderson Cooper 360, a CNN audio expert enhanced Zimmerman’s 9-1-1 call and suggested he had used a racial slur, “f–ing coon,” as he was following Trayvon Martin. Reporter Gary Tuchman asserted: “It certainly sounds like that word to me.”

    Two weeks later on the same show on April 4, CNN re-assessed the tape with another CNN expert, and now felt it suggests George Zimmerman was just chilly, muttering the words “f–ing cold” under his breath. Tuchman explained: “The reason some say that would be relevant is because it was unseasonably cold in Florida that night and raining.

    TUCHMAN: It sounds like — and we wanted to leave it up to the viewer — but it sounds like we’re hearing the swear word at first and then the word cold. And the reason some say that would be relevant is because it was unseasonably cold in Florida that night and raining. So that is what some supporters of Zimmerman are saying, that that would make sense if he was saying the word cold.

    Once again, Cooper turned to Toobin, who said he, too, had changed his mind: “This is also a good example of why it’s important to take your time. I remember when Gary Tuchman did his first report on it and I sat here with Anderson and I thought I heard C-O-O-N. But this certainly sounds like cold. The FBI has the best enhancement facilities in the world. Again, everybody wants this case to be wrapped up tomorrow. This just shows why it’s important to say, let’s get all the best evidence we can.”

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/04/06/cnn-walks-it-back-oops-zimmerman-didnt-say-coon-he-said-it-was-cold

    YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED

  179. OS:

    “Alex Karras and Dick Butkus”

    *******************

    I knew Alex Karrass and Dick Butkis (at least their play on Sundays). Zimmerman is no Karras or Butkis who wouldn’t need a gun to subdue a kid they outweighed by 80 pounds. No, Zimmerman’s a busybody with a firearm; a candy ass with a police scanner looking for some Walter Mitty-like adventure. He found it and didn’t like what he saw. And Trayvon Martin is dead.

  180. OS & Gene H:

    anon advises OS: “Do they allow anyone that has taken a course in how to fly a plane, fly a plane?”

    *******************

    No. but they allow anyone with a keyboard to analyze the legal aspects of a case on the internet. Not quite so liberal where it counts down at the courthouse where lawyers and experts get their say. There’s a message there for anon somewhere.

    He’s just priceless isn’t he? Refuting is own arguments with every next sentence; sometimes even in the same sentence.

  181. Don’t let the facts get in the way of the media.

    George Zimmerman weighs 170#; Trayvon Martin 160#

    Literally tens of thousands of publications and media outlets have reported that George Zimmerman weighed 250 pounds and Trayvon Martin weighed 140 pounds.

    The weight of 250 pounds for George Zimmerman was based on a police report that was over six years old. He has since lost a lot of weight. Newer pictures of Zimmerman show a much slimmer man.

    Media outlets have reported several different heights for George Zimmerman. They have ranged from 5’2″ to 5’9″. The Sanford police report from the night of the shooting lists Zimmerman at 5’9″.

    The police surveillance video, recently shown on ABC National News shows a fairly slender George Zimmerman the night of the attack. A close friend of Zimmerman, Joe Oliver, says Zimmerman is 5’8″ and currently only weighs 170 pounds.

    http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/george-zimmerman-weighs-170-trayvon-martin-160

  182. Bdaman:

    “The weight of 250 pounds for George Zimmerman was based on a police report that was over six years old.”

    *****************

    That’s sort of telling in itself wouldn’t you say. I bet I can’t get your weight from a prior “police report.”

    What do you think about his Shaken Baby Huey defense?

  183. Mespo to be honest I’m just catching up on all of it as I’ve been busy as of late. The whole thing stinks to the high heavens from all of the misinformation from the main scream media. The photos, the bad voice analysis and the editing of the 911 calls. Every one of zimmermans calls to the 911 system shows he never offered a description of any person he called into about until asked. A racist would likely say, There’s another suspicious coon walking in my neighborhood.

  184. Looking at the ABC video of Zimmerman being led into the station you can clearly see he looks nothing like the 250 lb man of six years ago.

    As for the shaken baby syndrome I have not a clue but you can ponder it all you’d like.

  185. Bdaman:

    That’s the nature of the media. they get it about half right. It’s not their fault. People won’t talk to them. They get taken advantage of by the spin doctors and frankly with shrinking budgets and less talented people getting into print media the whole process suffers. Add that to the dilution form too many outlets and you get less than stellar work.

    My point is that this case needs the best process we have for getting to the truth. And that’s all we’ve been saying, the rhetoric notwithstanding.

    That all said, how about a little Marvin Gaye this morning to set the mood?

  186. “That’s the nature of the media. they get it about half right. It’s not their fault.”

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME ?

    They are responsible for vetting out the truth.

    “My point is that this case needs the best process we have for getting to the truth. And that’s all we’ve been saying,”

    WE ? ah no MESPO you and the we had already convicted him based on the media reports that are only half right but it’s not their fault. Like the Richard Jewel case Zimmerman will not be prosecuted and will receive from millions from NBC for there false reporting hence the reason they now fired the employee. Got to save face somewhere. Shame Shame on all of you.

  187. Bdaman:

    “They are responsible for vetting out the truth.”

    *******************

    They are responsible for getting us the best information they can. The Court’s job is vetting the truth. Common mistake.

    I’ve convicted no one. Zimmerman’s not in jail – just hiding out like the coward he is and using surrogates and apologists for his very public defense. He’s not even indicted. He ‘s just being tried in the court of public opinion because the authorities in Sanford didn’t do their job.

    You kill an unarmed kid with a gun and some public scorn sort of goes with the territory don’t you think?

  188. bdaman:

    I’m a little surprised you won’t agree with me that a trial will accomplish both our ends. It will either exonerate Zimmerman or put him where I and a lot of others think he should be. What’s that unassailable guardian of the neighborhood afraid of by the way? The truth coming out?

  189. They are responsible for getting us the best information they can. The Court’s job is vetting the truth. Common mistake.

    The common mistake is you believing what they tell you even though by your claims they only get it half right. Mind you the same could be said about the court system in this country.

    You kill an unarmed kid with a gun and some public scorn sort of goes with the territory don’t you think?

    What about the record number of 109 people killed in Chicago in the last month. Where’s the public scorn on that one?

    And you did convict him publicly.

  190. What’s that unassailable guardian of the neighborhood afraid of by the way? The truth coming out?

    The truth is coming out and the truth is showing us how powerful the main scream media is at race baiting.

  191. Bdaman:

    “The truth is coming out and the truth is showing us how powerful the main scream media is at race baiting.”

    ************

    Seems the media that supports you is truth and the media that disputes you are race baiters. Not a particularly objective take on the situation, is it? Still waiting for you to agree to a trial for our zealous mall cop.

    Thank you for the irrelevancies about Chicago, but we’re not talking about that are we?

    If I convicted him, how come he’s still hiding around free? Believe me if I did, he’d be wearing convict orange and cleaning toilets with a toothbrush for 5 cents an hour that he’d promptly pay over to the Martin family.

  192. Seems the media that supports you is truth and the media that disputes you are race baiters.

    The media that supports me report the facts. The main scream media distorts the truth.

    You convicted him in the court of public opinion.

    mespo727272 1, March 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    OS:

    I heard what I heard and I know what I heard. if the Grand Jury hears what I heard, I suggest Ol’ Watchman George dress up in his Sunday best, bow gentlemanly from the waist and kiss his racist ass goodbye.

  193. Bdaman:

    I haven’t strayed a moment from that position, but to state the obvious (because I apparently need to) that’s not a conviction. It’s an opinion. A conviction requires a tribunal. Words really do mean things. They are not infinitely malleable to suit your whims.

    It’s not even a conviction in the court of public opinion. Only the public can convict and they have in the sense that 75% want a trial. Apologist like you want us to rely on the media (which you occasionally claim–when it suits you,– is agendized by its race baiting members) to exonerate him without a trial. Sorry bdaman, but no free passes for people conservatives like — you know, gun toting buffoons with a god-complex. Try again.

    Still waiting for your arguments against a trial on the Shaken Baby Defense. (Hint: Try blaming the media here too.)

    You guys really are fun!

  194. Please, now you want to play the word meaning game. In order to be a trial first has to be determined that a crime was committed. They haven’t done that yet but you are already ready for one.

  195. Bdaman:

    “In order to be a trial first has to be determined that a crime was committed.”

    ********************

    Oh, there’s been a crime as the initial investigator and Zimmerman’s scads of sycophants all agree. Either Trayvon Martin slapped our inquisitive, armed home inspector, or Zimmerman ruthlessly shot the unarmed teen in the chest with his 9mm killing him instantly.

    We can lett he jury decide? Or can’t we ’cause conservatives can’t handle the truth.

  196. Mark,

    The question is; Did you cross the line? Have you unjustly defamed George Zimmerman (a private figure) via Law Professor, Jonathan Turley’s Blog?

    When Professor Turley invited a limited number of his regular visitors to become guest bloggers on his site, he did so without any public disclaimer. The views expressed by his “guest bloggers” became the views of Professor Turley.

    Are the views expressed by a licensed attorney held to a higher standard? Is the presumption of innocence Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat a principle no longer recognized by the members of the Virginia Bar?

    I’m reasonably certain that you would expect Zimmerman’s attorneys to be looking into all entities that have defamed him during this controversy. Your documented refusal to update your article to include the experts who disagree with Owen and Primeau demonstrate your intent to harm Zimmerman. Your insistence that a jury should be the one to decide will go a long way in crushing your motion to dismiss.

    You should probably discuss the current situation with Jonathan and Suzanne. After all, you are also effecting them.

  197. Wesley:

    Were I Zimmerman I’d be looking more into my criminal defense. Tacit threats don’t make for very interesting commentary but thanks for the advice Wesley. It’s worth about what I paid for it. Conflating what the article says about the opinion of the identitiy of the voice pleading for help with the Zimmerman’s purported slur is about the type of analysis I get from conservative sycophants hell bent on blaming the kid.

    As for insisting on trial for this guy, I’d say he’d better get a class action together since everyone from President Obama to the Republican leadership to 75% of the population wants that. That should help the motion to dismiss.

    He’s presumed innocent by the court. Like you being a member of the public, I can hold any opinion I care to and express that opinion without fear of suit or chilling effect from commentators like you. We don’t give that right up when we pass the bar. In fact, it’s sort of required since we get to speak for those who can’t speak for themselves.

    And let’s get this straight, In this case, there’s plenty of evidence to question our fellows motives with the recording being just one. That tape enhancement seemed pretty clear to me but I’ll listen to other evidence if it exists. If it’s doctored or edited then surely its veracity is suspect, but I’ve seen no evidence of that. Also, it seems I can’t listen to Tom Owen who suggests he did not say the offending word because anon and many apologists llike him think his methodolgy is quackery. The FBI doesn’t think so but why let a llittle fact like that ruin their rant. Interestingly, nobodytalks much about Ed Primeau’s opinion but I guess the talking points aren’t out from Fox News yet.

    Like I said, bring on the evidence in a courtroom with full right of cross-examination. Unlike most of the folks in defense of Zimmerman, I’m perfectly willing to re-evaluate based on new evidence, but I’ve seen precious little to make me change my mind so far. That Shaken Baby stuff is laughable.

    By the way, there’s nothing in the article false or misleading. It’s simply a statement of what the experts found. Like I said at the end, if the FBI sides with Zimmerman, he’s got some room to maneuver. If not, I’d be looking plea since it’s hard to justify shooting an unarmed kid pleadng tor his life or wouldn’t you agree?

    Pass this on to anon (but I think that’s who you are), you don’t get to silence opinions you don’t like with threats. Wrong country, wrong tactic.

  198. Oh, you think I’m Wesley Owens now.

    Because like Queeg, (Mark Esposito reaches into his pocket, grabs his balls and starts audibly shuffling them in front of everyone) you are convinced by your geometric logic that anyone that disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy and most likely the same person.

    “Zimmerman’s not in jail – just hiding out like the coward he is and using surrogates and apologists for his very public defense. ”

    So let’s take a look at this. A fine admission of self-loathing by an attorney and member of the bar.

    I used to read John Grisham, Scott Turow and other novels written by lawyers. The one theme constant in these novels is how much lawyers hate themselves, how scummy and sleazy and corrupt they are, and how they know it.

    And here we have a nice fine attorney writing on a civil liberties blog saying that Zimmerman, for not coming forward to the public at this time, and speaking through his defense attorney is a coward.

    Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

    You’re such a dope.

  199. anon:

    “I used to read John Grisham, Scott Turow and other novels written by lawyers. The one theme constant in these novels is how much lawyers hate themselves, how scummy and sleazy and corrupt they are, and how they know it.”

    ********************

    Er … anon … John Grisham and Scott Turow are lawyers. Grisham recently handled a million dollar case and Turow is in full-time practice. They don’t hate themselves. But don’t let a wrong foundational fact stop your shtik ( I like the Yiddish word here rather than the corruption “schtick.”), all clowns get some license. Tell me more. It helps in my research of primitive peoples.

  200. Actually mespo, the point of my post was that it’s shameful that a lawyer would write that it’s cowardly for Zimmerman to let his lawyer speak for him, and admits to a huge acknowledge of what turds lawyers are.

    As you gloss by that, I will add that when Grisham writes almost 30 novels all about what sleezebags inhabit a lawyers skin, including often times, the heroes of the story, it’s probably fair to suspect that Grisham thinks the best place for many lawyers in in a blender. Lastly, you just have to look at the enormous numbers of lawyers who get out of law describing jackasses like you as people they wouldn’t want to spend an elevator ride with much less a career to understand the enormous problems in your “profession.”

    However, once more, I’ll say your statement about it being cowardly of Zimmerman to let himself be represented by a lawyer and to otherwise shut-up speaks volumes about how much you (rightfully) hate yourself and other lawyers and proudly boast of your ignorance towards the law.

  201. Here is automatic octopus voice translation, based on the same technologies that Tom Owen uses.


    Education researchers at Oregon Sea Grant’s Free-Choice Learning Lab, housed at Oregon State University’s Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC), have discovered a way to translate octopus gestures to human speech.

    Converting octopus gestures to human speech

    “We have two cameras, one that looks externally and one that looks in the tank itself.

    We are able to send these camera feeds through our human facial recognition software and with the use of special measuring devices we’ve been able to calibrate motions that the octopus makes, iris changes in the octopus and take the human analog and create an octopus analog, which has been fascinating.

    What this allows us to do is put together a grammar of octopus language.

  202. Presuming, arguendo, that the voice on the 911 tape appearing to yell “Help Help” was George Zimmerman’s voice (which, obviously, cannot be proven by at least the two scientific forensic voice analysts who already evaluated the tapes), we would still have the following situation to deal with:
    1. Zimmerman expressed on a phone call that he acknowledged was HIS OWN VOICE dismay that “these assholes always get away,” thus making it clear to anyone who takes him at his own word that he wished he could prevent Trayvon Martin from leaving “his” “jurisdiction”;
    2. Zimmerman said on that same phone call, “Shit, he’s running,” and NOT: “Uh Oh he’s coming after me,” thus giving the clear impression that the direction in which Martin was running was AWAY FROM ZIMMERMAN; and
    3. The crime that the police report indicated was being considered by the police was NOT self-defense, was NOT killing accidentally in self-defense, but was the crime of accidentally killing someone while preventing them from committing a FELONY.

    In other words, on Feb. 26, 2012, the police were not suggesting that Zimmerman had to kill Martin to prevent his own grievous injury or death; they were suggesting that Zimmerman had to kill Martin to prevent Martin from COMMITTING A FELONY.

    The assumption that Martin was doing something wrong was an assumption that Zimmerman and the police SHARED that night. THAT was why they resisted arresting him (even if one out of them was not resisting it as vigorously as the others). They all presumed Martin was committing a crime and they didn’t want to punish Zimmerman for preventing it.

    Now let’s say Zimmerman WAS shouting “help help” before he shot Martin. He could have been shouting for help in subduing someone he already regarded as a criminal — NOT help in defending himself from a beating.

    Although I believe it’s pretty obviously not Zimmerman’s voice, it wouldn’t change the situation if it were. And Zimmerman’s self-serving statement to EMTs and police that “I yelled for help but nobody helped me” is simply not true; it seems that plenty of folks called 911 when they heard the shouts.

  203. Mespo:

    “No, Zimmerman’s a busybody with a firearm; a candy ass with a police scanner looking for some Walter Mitty-like adventure. He found it and didn’t like what he saw. And Trayvon Martin is dead.”

    Yes, if you cannot handle yourself without a firearm you should not carry one.

    Zimmerman is a candy ass and a moron for not knowing his limitations. The pistol gave him a false sense of security.

  204. “looking for some Walter Mitty-like adventureHe found it and didn’t like what he saw. And Trayvon Martin is dead.”

    I am afraid it was he liked what he saw, an excuse, in his mind, for playing a stevan segall walter mitty.

  205. Hi, folks. (Well, I might have meant “folks” or “yolks” or “fools” or “bulks” or “punks”) I just now re-skimmed this thread because it showed up in my e-mails in-box and I’m trying to avoid doing stuff I really hate and feel aversive to (and ending a sentence with a preposition is something UP with which I will not PUT).

    So I saw for the first time, really, the Walter Mitty analogy, and whoever first posted it (I believe Mespo although I didn’t do careful research and would ask a good journalist to fact-check me on that) is a genius. A GENIUS!

    It falls into place for me now. A guy is raised in a very “strict” (I read that word differently but my parenting philosophy is not significant here) household and his brother is the preferred sibling. He and his brother are different and bro is perhaps more successful. Guy goes off to work for his godfather who purchased a million-dollar business. A million-dollar business doesn’t necessarily make much money, by the way. Ask the IRS. Guy wants to have a certain image, doesn’t have it, gets frustrated, has never learned to deal with frustration, not at that level, not appropriately.

    Society “prepares the crime” and the criminal commits it.

    All my blogging on this case has been prosecutorial toward Zimmerman, no room for doubt about that. Much of it has, I hope, been hard-hitting and unequivocal about issues of blame, guilt, punishment, amelioration, mitigation, conspiracy, you name it, this got my BLOOD PRESSURE UP (oh oh oh gimme my lisinopril QUICK!). And I’m not trying to spread around the accountability (It’s on Zimmerman, the police, Wolfinger, and government corruption in its many forms) but now that I can breathe again, and now that I was given this gift of the image of the Mitty-capades that might have been dancing in Zimmerman’s twisted mind on 2/26/2012 before the retort of the gunshot that HE USED TO KILL TRAYVON MARTIN (RIP),

    Let me look at the society in which Walter Mitty drives down the street with his hands on the steering wheel.

    OMG. This society says that in order for Walter Mitty to be somebody, he has to be the SOMEBODY he was not. He has to be the SOMEBODY he could never be, and more importantly, could never HOPE to be.

    OMG, I am on the stand again as the only witness being called (as an adverse, of course, because the case is a case in adverse, in which my crime is going to be that I do not admit how inadequate I am, how bad I am, how much better I should be) in a case meant to take custody away from me. Sorry, guys, I use analogies as I find them. OH NO, I cannot prove that I was any better than I was. OH NO, I cannot avoid admitting I was not as good as the pro se movant suggests I should have been. At every point in my life, I was really supposed to show that I was striving — and always unsuccessfully — to come up to the standard that was being drawn and then repeatedly redrawn (and NEVER REVEALED) by the person entitled to decide my fate and the person entitled to conclude that I was found lacking.

    Is this how the son of a judge who brought us into this thread was raised? Was he a witness against himself every day of his childhood? Look what this produces, O my friends, countrymen, even my inevitable masters, look!

    (To those who may read my posts to figure out whom I am channeling next: I have no earthly idea! This just came into my meditation on Walter Mitty. But don’t worry about the ramifications; my son, the alleged subject of the “adversity suit,” is not only fine, but great, and we are best friends, and he is my most staunch supporter, and he went to court with me in DC yesterday and was eloquently and beautifully visible as undeniable evidence of my good-enough-mothering.)

    Zimmerman sits in jail. The country awaits trial or perhaps plea bargain. Much information will never be made available, never be subjected to the investigation and evaluation meant to find facts. Even things that are recorded are not adequate representations of reality. ANd every reality is one reality in the mind of Zimmerman and quite another in, say, mind of Malisha. And now I wonder how much of the secret life of any Walter or Marlene Mitty could be allowed to find expression — even ENCOURAGED to find expression — in some manner that did not hurt Trayvon Martin, did not hurt Anon, did not hurt Gene H or Mespo or Elizabeth Morgan’s child or Woosty or Dredd or me…

  206. Dan Linehan on April 3, 2012 of wagist takes down Tom Owen and the vaunted American College of Forensic Examiners as a whole lot of horseshit

    This is a rough copy paste but go to the link, it’s complete there with images and everything as Dan originally intended it.

    Anyway though, I have to say I completely believe that Otteray Scribe, mespo, and Gene H are considered outstanding in their field. But what does it say about lawyers and forensic bullshit expert witnesses that they are?

    “Two experts in the field of forensic voice identification, Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, were hired by the Orlando Sentinel to review George Zimmerman’s call to police along with the 911 calls right before the shooting.

    They both decided the voice screaming for help on the 911 calls was not George Zimmerman, and each expert arrived at that conclusion by independent methods.

    Tom Owen is mentioned first in the article. He’s described as a forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services, LLC.

    Let’s take a closer look at the process he used.

    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.

    That raises some concerns. Tom Owen apparently compared Zimmerman’s normal speaking voice on a dispatch call, with high-pitched, terrified screaming that was recorded in the background of later 911 calls.

    In our world, “that’s the home run,” Owen says.

    I was pretty stunned that he could be so sure. After all, the computer program is looking for similarities in the vocal patterns. How many can it possibly find when pattern A is completely normal, laid back speech and pattern B is hysterical screaming?

    I wanted to investigate this a bit further and looked into downloading the software Tom Owen used.

    But this proved to be extremely difficult, a license for the software costs nearly $5,000.

    That’s a pretty hefty price to pay to test this software out…

    After a few more minutes of research, I found out that the Easy Voice Biometrics web domain is actually owned by Tom Owen himself.

    So what Tom Owen is actually doing here, is using his own home-grown software to attempt to determine the similarities in speech markers between two radically different types of voice patterns and claiming that it is accurate “beyond scientific certainty.”

    Beyond scientific certainty is a pretty strong statement.

    There doesn’t seem to be any disclosure in the Orlando Sentinel article that Tom Owen owns EasyVoiceBiometrics.com, nor any that he was using his own software package to do the analysis.

    I’m not sure whether the Orlando Sentinel author realizes it, but that could easily be construed as a conflict of interest, particularly when the software is currently being sold for $5,000 per license. There’s an extremely transparent profit motive for Tom Owen to promote his product in any way that he can, especially at that price.

    Since Tom Owen has staked his reputation on this, and has said point-blank that this software is so accurate that he knows “with reasonable scientific certainty” that it’s not Zimmerman on the 911 calls, the software must at least be extremely thoroughly tested, right?

    ….

    It also says, on Easy Voice Biometric’s own web site, that the software is less than a month old.

    This is especially strange, because the Orlando Sentinel article says:

    As recently as January, Owen used the same technology to identify accused murderer Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.

    How could Owen have been using the same technology in that case when the web site says the software was only released three weeks ago?

    It lists a launch date of March 7th, 2012 on the news section of the site:

    Since Owen referred me to TracerTek.com, I checked out that site as well.

    TracerTek.com and EasyVoiceBiometrics.com appear to be using the same web site template, just with different information filled in.

    It appears Jeff Klinedinst is involved with both. He is listed as the VP of Marketing on TracerTek and he did the YouTube demo videos for Easy Voice Biometrics.

    The software appears to work fine if someone alters their voice slightly, or if there is light music playing in the background.

    But there certainly isn’t anything in the demos about Easy Voice Biometrics offering “reasonable scientific certainty” when someone is screaming in panic on the background of a 911 call.

    So where exactly is this “scientific certainty” coming from?

    The second expert, Ed Primeau, doesn’t “believe” in Biometric Analysis, but doesn’t say why.

    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.

    Ed simply listened to the recordings. Then he decided the noises were Trayvon Martin because of the “tone of the voice” while reading Mother Jones.

    “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.”

    Nevermind that there was an eyewitness to the fight who clearly states it was George Zimmerman yelling out for help. Or that Zimmerman is cited in the original police report as saying he was yelling for help. Or that the yells much more accurately portray someone who is screaming during an assault, rather than someone begging for their life at gunpoint.

    Both Primeau and Owen report that they are credentialed by the American College Forensic Examiners Institute.

    Sadly, it turns out there is an entire suite of these “American Forensic Board” sites, on almost any topic you can think of, which all seem to be ran by the same person, a gentleman named Dr. O’Block who claims to have nearly a dozen degrees himself.

    Once again, most of these sites use the same basic template and only change cursory details, making it difficult to gauge how legitimate the boards are, if at all.

    Tom Owen also lists things like this:

    Instructor “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
    1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007

    As prestigious as the “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” sounds, there is no such brick and mortar institute. It is actually a “division” of Owen Investigations, LLC. Tom Owen is basically claiming he was an instructor at his own unaccredited university.

    I’m sure we’ll hear more about this in the upcoming weeks, since both of these “experts” have sparked a lot of controversy with their statements and placed their reputations on the line.

  207. If any private investigator or police detective buys this software, I am sure that they will do what most hunters do after buying a new gun. They TEST it first. So if the authors of the software are pulling a scam by NOT doing the testing before they offer it for sale, they will be found out rather quickly and have a LOT of unhappy customers demanding their $5000 back! If I were developing such software, I would get all my friends, relatives and strangers to come in and do vocals in different settings and pitches.

    Absent any evidence of fraud, it is easy to simply throw stones at any persons credibility with NO evidence at all. But of course, the intent is NOT to find out the truth, just to defend the indefensible.

  208. Oh, for Gawd’s sake. O’Brock is a well-knows charlatan who started peddling fake credentials after he was fired from Appalachian State University. Every lawyer in the country knows about his diploma mill. All he has managed to do, besides get rich, is cause problems for persons who hold real certificates which are incredibly hard to get, such as the diplomas of the American Board of Forensic Psychology and the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry.

    I do not know much about these audiology guys, but they must be onto something if every skinhead and neonazi orginaization in the country is after their scalps trying to discredit them.

    As I have said before, the real crux is what the FBI labs learn, not the prelmiminary opinions of some private investigators. Also, it is easier to prove a voiceprint is NOT a particular person than to accurately identify whose voice it is.

  209. OS, yes, thank you. The first thing that happens when an expert gets put on the stand, either for the prosecution or for the defense, in a criminal trial or a civil trial, is the voir dire to figure out if that expert is a snake oil salesman or [whatever][a properly credentialed expert][a politician]. If there is going to be a trial in this case, neither the prosecution nor the defense is going to let guys get up there without the kind of evaluation that will shake loose their marbles if they’re missing any.

  210. “Oh, for Gawd’s sake. O’Brock is a well-knows charlatan who started peddling fake credentials after he was fired from Appalachian State University. Every lawyer in the country knows about his diploma mill. All he has managed to do, besides get rich, is cause problems for persons who hold real certificates which are incredibly hard to get, such as the diplomas of the American Board of Forensic Psychology and the American Board of Forensic Psychiatry.

    I do not know much about these audiology guys, but they must be onto something if every skinhead and neonazi orginaization in the country is after their scalps trying to discredit them.”

    Let’s note first how Otteray Scribe rushes away from American College of Forensic Examiners.

    And then giggle as Otteray Scribe rushes back in and calls out anyone that points out ACFE is a bunch of scammers and they are the ones that accreddited Tom Owens and Ed Primeau as skinheads and Nazis.

    Sorry Scribe, that makes no sense at all even beyond your usual treknobabble.

    Of course, this entire thread has been about a bunch if idiot lawyers AND YOU SCRIBE telling us again and again that Tom Owens is impeachable and so is forensic scream identification.

  211. Frontline just did a report on “The Real CSI”

    Here is what they have to say about AFCE, Block, and of course, Tom Owens, proud holder of an AFCE credential:

    No Forensic Background? No Problem

    April 17, 2012, 12:04 pm ET by Leah Bartos ProPublica

    This is how I — a journalism graduate student with no background in forensics — became certified as a “Forensic Consultant” by one of the field’s largest professional groups.

    One afternoon early last year, I punched in my credit card information, paid $495 to the American College of Forensic Examiners International Inc. and registered for an online course.

    After about 90 minutes of video instruction, I took an exam on the institute’s web site, answering 100 multiple-choice questions, aided by several ACFEI study packets.

    As soon as I finished the test, a screen popped up saying that I had passed, earning me an impressive-sounding credential that could help establish my qualifications to be an expert witness in criminal and civil trials.

    For another $50, ACFEI mailed me a white lab coat after sending my certificate.

    For the last two years, ProPublica and FRONTLINE, in concert with other news organizations, have looked in-depth at death investigation in America, finding a pervasive lack of national standards that begins in the autopsy room and ends in court.

    Expert witnesses routinely sway trial verdicts with testimony about fingerprints, ballistics, hair and fiber analysis and more, but there are no national standards to measure their competency or ensure that what they say is valid. A landmark 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences called this lack of standards one of the most pressing problems facing the criminal justice system.

    Over the last two decades, ACFEI has emerged as one of the largest forensic credentialing organizations in the country.

    Among its members are top names in science and law, from Henry Lee, the renowned criminalist, to John Douglas, the former FBI profiler and bestselling author. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a prominent forensic pathologist and frequent TV commentator on high-profile crimes, chairs the group’s executive advisory board.

    But ACFEI also has given its stamp of approval to far less celebrated characters. It welcomed Seymour Schlager, whose credentials were mailed to the prison where he was incarcerated for attempted murder. Zoe D. Katz — the name of a house cat enrolled by her owner in 2002 to show how easy it was to become certified by ACFEI — was issued credentials, too. More recently, Dr. Steven Hayne, a Mississippi pathologist whose testimony helped to convict two innocent men of murder, has used his ACFEI credential to bolster his status as an expert witness.

    Several former ACFEI employees call the group a mill designed to churn out and sell as many certificates as possible. They say applicants receive cursory, if any, background checks and that virtually everyone passes the group’s certification exams as long as their payments clear.

    Some forensic professionals say the organization’s willingness to hand out credentials diminishes the integrity of the field.

    “I am insulted by it,” said Dr. Victor Weedn, a forensic pathologist for Maryland’s chief medical examiner office and the vice president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. “They seem like an organization that’s all about the money.”

  212. “As prestigious as the “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” sounds, there is no such brick and mortar institute. It is actually a “division” of Owen Investigations, LLC. Tom Owen is basically claiming he was an instructor at his own unaccredited university.”

    ***********************
    Yeah, that Tom Owen is quite the master of deception. Apparently he’s so adept that he’s “fooled” scads of courts into thinking he’s an expert and his methodology meets their standard for reliability. Exclude him I say. It’s only 35 or so courts listed, you know. Plus anon doesn’t like him:

    From his Tom Owen’s CV:

    COURT QUALIFIED as EXPERT in VOICE IDENTIFICATION, AUDIO AND VIDEO AUTHENTICATION, SIGNAL PROCESSING, TAPE ENHANCEMENT, RECORDING INDUSTRY PRACTICES.
    To date: New York Southern District, New York Eastern District, New York, Buffalo, and New York State Court. Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Hartford, CT; Bridgeport, CT; New York Rockland County; Raleigh, NC; Newark, NJ; Mays Landing, NJ; Tottawa, NJ; Nashville, TN; Savannah, GA; Carmel, NY; Dover, DE; Tulsa, OK; Louisville, KY; Los Angeles, CA; Bowling Green, KY; Alexandria, VA; Zenia, OH; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO; NY Bronx Superior
    Court, Manhattan Supreme Court; NYPD Arbitration Hearing Board; Morganville, West Virginia; Fresno, CA; Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; Washington DC; Maryland; Florida; Idaho, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hartford, CT, Evanston, IL, Somerville, NJ, Brooklyn, NY ,Miami, FL and others.

  213. anon nurse:

    Like our pal Zimmerman, he’s probably done nothing wrong either. Just wrong place, wrong time. Likely scapegoated, too.

    Let’s see what are resident apologists have to say about him. Should be fascinating.

  214. anon drools: “AND YOU SCRIBE telling us again and again that Tom Owens is impeachable and so is forensic scream identification.”

    **************************************

    OK, if you are so smart, please provide a link to anywhere in the blogosphere I ever said anything remotely like that. There is a word for people who just make up stuff. Rhymes with pliers.

    I never said anything one way or the other about Tom Owens, whom I would not know if he came though my front door carrying a bass fiddle. What I did say was the proof of the pudding is going to be what the FBI audiology lab does with the data. Nothing more. I did say that it is also easier to establish that a voice is not someone than than to make a positive identification.

    Got any more of your made up stuff?

  215. “From his Tom Owen’s CV:

    COURT QUALIFIED as EXPERT in VOICE IDENTIFICATION, AUDIO AND VIDEO AUTHENTICATION, SIGNAL PROCESSING, TAPE ENHANCEMENT, RECORDING INDUSTRY PRACTICES.
    To date: New York Southern District, New York Eastern District, New York, Buffalo, and New York State Court. Philadelphia, PA; Bethlehem, PA; Hartford, CT; Bridgeport, CT; New York Rockland County; Raleigh, NC; Newark, NJ; Mays Landing, NJ; Tottawa, NJ; Nashville, TN; Savannah, GA; Carmel, NY; Dover, DE; Tulsa, OK; Louisville, KY; Los Angeles, CA; Bowling Green, KY; Alexandria, VA; Zenia, OH; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO; NY Bronx Superior
    Court, Manhattan Supreme Court; NYPD Arbitration Hearing Board; Morganville, West Virginia; Fresno, CA; Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; Washington DC; Maryland; Florida; Idaho, Las Vegas, Nevada, Hartford, CT, Evanston, IL, Somerville, NJ, Brooklyn, NY ,Miami, FL and others.”

    Mark,

    I truly do not understand what your point is here, except to show precisely what Frontline claims: that courts are easily duped into believing total bullshit is science and giving “authority” to asshole scam artists.

    Your text also demonstrates how courts and you fall prey to a) appeal to authority, and b) anchoring bias. “He’s been admitted to court 1, 2, and 3, surely he’s an expert for our court too.”

    It’s not that I dislike Owens, if you reread this thread I link to many many people, from scientists, to other audio experts to lawyers, none of whom think the guy is anything but a charlatan.

    He is defended only by lawyers with a conflict of interest, and other scam artists in his trade, who also have a conflict of interest.

    Software recognized scream identification Mark, are you still sticking with that?

    You do not normally plumb the Gene Howington levels of drooling idiocy. Usually you just make dumb arrogant stereotyped remarks that betray your inner bigotry and that you and many others pass off as acceptable forms of progressive ironic humor. And then you make the occasional truly epic mistake that you can even acknowledge. And you’re arrogant as all get out and can almost never admit when you’re wrong.

    But software recognized automatic scream identification? Really? You’re sticking with that story and the guy who sold it to you?

    That boat sailed a long long time ago Mark.

    Time to start swimming for shore.

  216. Peddle it elsewhere Scribbler, because all we have to do is read upthread to your first comment where you endorse software aided automatic scream identification AND how it rules out Zimmerman.

    Otteray Scribe
    1, April 1, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    OK guys. I do know this stuff and have several thousand dollars worth of voice audio analysis gear in my office closet to show for it. This is not as hard as it sounds. The analysis, from a scientific standpoint, is not unlike fingerprints or DNA. If you have a match that is less than 60%, you can say the likelihood of it being the person in question is zero. Tom Owen, and Ed Primeau came to their virtually identical conclusions separately and without consulting each other. You now have two analyses by two of the country’s leading experts. The chances of the yells being Zimmerman’s are nil. Next question is to look for the person whose voice is on those recordings. Is it Martin? At this point, no one can say with reasonable certainty until a sample of his voice is produced. Hopefully he made some audio or video recordings that will surface.

    BTW, last I heard, this equipment and technology had withstood a Daubert challenge. I have used it in court and had my evidence accepted. If someone knows different, or more recent case law, I will defer.

  217. Gene & mespo,
    The Zimmerman peanut gallery will just not let it go. That is an awful lot of mental gymnastics to absolutely no point. In view of the fact that Stormfront and other neonazi/KKK front organizations are circling the wagons in support of Zimmerman, it makes one wonder what the agenda might be.

    Nah, I don’t really wonder at all.

  218. anon:

    I get it now: The lawyers in all those cases were wrong. The judges were wrong, too. The juries who accepted his evidence were mistaken. The FBI was wrong to use him. Tom Owens is demonstrably wrong for developing software which he uses to amplify and analyze voices. Hell, I bet Edison was wrong for explaining effective incandescent bulbs because he invented them. There is no authority on anything. An appeal to to authority means nothing even if the authority is real and acknowledged and his testimony has been accepted most everywhere he’s tried to give it. The Orlando Sentinel was duped, too.

    And, of course, anon is right.

    I see, Mr. White Rabbit. Now I see.

  219. “The Zimmerman peanut gallery will just not let it go. That is an awful lot of mental gymnastics to absolutely no point. In view of the fact that Stormfront and other neonazi/KKK front organizations are circling the wagons in support of Zimmerman, it makes one wonder what the agenda might be.”

    That’s right Scribe, anyone who defends Zimmerman in any manner is a member of Stormfront or a neoNazi.

    This includes Professor Turley and Jeralyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz who like me, have wondered about the overcharging and question Tom Owen’s scream identification.

    Nice little smear campaign there Otteray.

    Some logic and nice ethics as presented by a certified court expert witness in forensic psychiatry.

  220. anon: Grandiose much? Comparing your drivel with legitimate defense attorneys such as Professors Turley and Dershowitz? The false equivalences are getting deep in here.

    When the FBI forensic labs come up with their final findings, what will your excuse be then?

  221. ” get it now: The lawyers in all those cases were wrong. The judges were wrong, too. The juries who accepted his evidence were mistaken. The FBI was wrong to use him. Tom Owens is demonstrably wrong for developing software which he uses to amplify and analyze voices. ”

    Yes, Mark,

    That is precisely what Frontline and Pro-publica say.

    Has this never happened before?

    Are you shocked to find the courts have systematically gotten it wrong for so wrong? Have a lawyer break the news to you about separate but equal.

    And you can reread my analysis of Tom’s claims on his website to discover why his website and his materials there in no way backed up his claims as to what the software can do.

    But seriously, I applaud you for your ability to see past all of Tom’s fake diplomas and the fake institutions he set up without ever showing working software to compare him to Thomas Edison who could walk into a courtroom turn on a light and then explain how that worked.

    Most of us are not so open minded and seeing just one fake diploma, or one fake paper institution would dismiss him, but you are wise enough to see past all of that and accept his claim of software automatic scream identification without bothering to ask for a demonstration of same or technical discussion of same.

    Because after all, all those courts and lawyers couldn’t be wrong.

    Arrogance, yours goes to 12.

  222. Turley: he was overcharged.
    Dershowitz: he was overcharged.
    Merritt: he was overcharged.

    Anon: I think he was overcharged.

    Scribbler: Anon, stop acting so grandiose!

    Merritt: the science behind automatic scream identification is not there.
    Maguire: the science behind automatic scream identification is not there and these guys are frauds.
    Some other website I linked to up above: the science behind automatic scream identification is not there and these guys are frauds.
    Ed fucking Primeau: I don’t believe in automatic scream identification.

    Anon: these guys seem to be frauds. I believe the science behind automatic scream identification is not there.

    Scribbler: Anon, stop acting so grandiose!

    Scribbler: treknobabble about automatic scream identification and boasting of his certification as expert witless.

    Scribber: people that don’t agree with me are neonazis.

  223. Shorter Otteray Scribbler: Treknobabble, treknobabble, aerobatics, here’s my family, treknobablble, boasting, boasting, boasting treknobabble about my family, I’m a psychologist don’t you know, boast, boast, expert witness, treknobabble, I think you’re hitler, treknobabble.

  224. OS:

    “When the FBI forensic labs come up with their final findings, what will your excuse be then?

    ************************

    Obviously, the FBI got it wrong, too. Just ask Frontline and Pro-Publica.

  225. Anon, there can be a battle of the experts with a bunch of guys on one side showing all their curricula vitae and getting through voir dire and then the guys on the other side doing the same. (Guys includes both male and female experts in my shorthand, please.) Fine There can be a battle of the “fact” witnesses with a few saying this and a few more saying that. There can certainly be a battle of the “character witnesses.” On and on, no problem. Surely the side that is opposing what each witness says will attack their credibility. But if, say, the experts who say the “HELP HELP” voice is not Zimmerman’s are considered pretty good by the jury, and if, say, the experts who claim it IS Zimmerman’s voice yelling “HELP HELP” are considered a little bit not so good by the jury, then the mere question: “WHO DID IN FACT YELL HELP HELP” is not going to be the question at all. The question is going to be: DID GEORGE ZIMMERMAN LIE ABOUT THAT RIGHT OFF THE BAT WHILE TRAYVON MARTIN’S BODY WAS STILL WARM AND HIS BLOOD WAS FLOWING INTO THE GROUND?

    The entire self-defense argument, if Zimmerman can sustain one, will be hinged on his CREDIBILITY.

    Right now, probably only those people who are sure Trayvon Martin ran after and jumped Zimmerman have firm convictions about George Zimmerman’s credibility. Folks who think that would be unlikely are probably thinking, “hmmmmm, that sounds like a lie to me.” And one of the things they are watching is the voice-print evidence.

    It’s not, after all, about who was right or wrong in the killing. It’s about whether Zimmerman (the sole surviving witness to the pre-killing physical transactions) can be believed.

  226. Here are some more:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/us/errors-at-fbi-may-be-issue-in-3000-cases.html

    http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20120422/NEWS0107/204220388/

    Hey mespo, it’s actually refreshing to hear a proudly self-claimed progressive liberal like you denounce Frontline and pro-publica.

    I mean, it demonstrates your arrogance sure, but seriously, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a liberal denounce those organizations. Especially Frontline.

    So good on you for taking that initiative and running with it.

  227. anon:

    The sad bottom line on this case is that, regardless of outcome, one young life is gone and another is ruined because a concealed weapon was interjected into a senseless situation that would have been resolved in less than 6 minutes had Zimmerman just sat in his vehicle and waited. Zimmerman would not have gone after or stopped anybody that night unless he had his courage in his holster. It’s an “Armed Citizen” story without the fake “happy” ending. Zimmerman won’t get over it and neither will Martin’s parents or Zimmerman’s family or on and on.

    Viva the Second Amendment and machismo. This gun cost scores of lives and to what purpose? So Zimmerman could play cop and protect the neighborhood from a non-threat?

  228. anon:

    I’m no respecter of persons. I like reason tempered with mercy. It’s a classic combination, you know.

  229. Malisha,

    If Tom Owen’s claims survive a Daubert, or Frye not that I know what those are, to even be heard before a jury, there will have been a travesty of justice.

    It would be like a creationist surviving a Daubert or Frye to “do battle” against evolution.

    It would be allowing a jury to decide which is more scientifically accurate, creationism or evolution.

    Tom Owens is a complete and total fraud. His diplomas are fraudulent from diploma mills. His software cannot do what he claims it can do. He had almost zero evidence to work with, and certainly not the evidence people in his field normally require to do such work.

    Mespo, and Otteray and Gene Howington have been defending this total fraudster scam artist snake oil salesman for weeks, because:

    1) They used him to lynch Zimmerman

    2) Mespo is a lawyer and he cannot begin to believe that all these lawyers in their fine suits and amusing stories of being a 2L could possibly be wrong.

    3) Otteray is a forensic psychologist and he peddles the exact same line of bullshit as Tom Owens and so though he knows the truth, he cannot admit that. Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” OR as Otteray implements it: he makes his money selling forensic psychology to the courts, no way will he impeach it in a blog.

    So though Mespo has nothing to go on besides a bunch of courts admitting this fraud, and even though now numerous others have debunked Owens’ credentials and his procedure and his technology, Mespo finds himself stuck, because Mark, though presumably a nice guy we all would like to beer with, well his arrogance goes to 12, and he finds it almost impossible to ever admit he was epically wrong.

    That is almost a good trait to have in your advocate until he drives you off a cliff or carefully lawyers you onto death row and won’t admit how he fucked up.

  230. “anon:

    The sad bottom line on this case is that, regardless of outcome, one young life is gone and another is ruined because a concealed weapon was interjected into a senseless situation that would have been resolved in less than 6 minutes had Zimmerman just sat in his vehicle and waited. Zimmerman would not have gone after or stopped anybody that night unless he had his courage in his holster. It’s an “Armed Citizen” story without the fake “happy” ending. Zimmerman won’t get over it and neither will Martin’s parents or Zimmerman’s family or on and on.

    Viva the Second Amendment and machismo. This gun cost scores of lives and to what purpose? So Zimmerman could play cop and protect the neighborhood from a non-threat?”

    I think I agree with this to about 98% or so.

    I have some qualms because it does seem Zimmerman was constitutionally justified to walk through that neighborhood with a gun, and even to ignore the dispatcher. And there seems ample reasonable doubt as to what actually happened.

    I have some qualms because even though I regard Zimmerman as dumber and less noble than Philip Francis Queeg, do you remember that speech that Barney Greenwald (nice fine Jewish lawyer) gave to Maryk and Keefer at the end?

    Well I’m a little worried that in other occasions society would be wise to encourage Zimmerman and people like Zimmerman to take heroic stupid actions at times. Like rafflaw running into a burning building. Like Queeg signing up in the Navy and protecting all us college boys, or even, yuck making Col Jesseps’ speech just that much harder to disagree with even as we know we should.

    In general, though, I am against lynch mobs and that is what this blog has overflowed with in recent weeks.

    Now, for Otteray Scribe, that’s proof enough I want to kills Jews and lynch blacks.

  231. Same link as before, new story. (I would have thought that the old story might have remained the same, with an update, but it looks like they rewrote the article, using the same link.)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/chief-bill-lee-jr-expected-to-resign-in-trayvon-martin-case.html?hp

    New Wrinkle in Plan for Police Chief in Trayvon Martin Case to Resign

    By SERGE F. KOVALESKI
    Published: April 23, 2012

    SANFORD, Fla. — Hours after the city negotiated the resignation of the police chief who temporarily stepped aside in the furor over the death of Trayvon Martin, the city commission on Monday voted against the plan.

  232. “Resignation of Police Chief in Martin Case Is Rejected” is the third title. The link remains the same.

  233. Mespo said: The sad bottom line on this case is that, regardless of outcome, one young life is gone and another is ruined because a concealed weapon was interjected into a senseless situation that would have been resolved in less than 6 minutes had Zimmerman just sat in his vehicle and waited. Zimmerman would not have gone after or stopped anybody that night unless he had his courage in his holster. It’s an “Armed Citizen” story without the fake “happy” ending. Zimmerman won’t get over it and neither will Martin’s parents or Zimmerman’s family or on and on.

    Viva the Second Amendment and machismo. This gun cost scores of lives and to what purpose? So Zimmerman could play cop and protect the neighborhood from a non-threat?

    Too many people arguing about his position in second paragraph so I wont go there but as to his first I think the loss for each family has been lost in this media fired rush to judgement.

  234. ANNOUNCEMENT: Zimmerman has not been lynched. He has been charged with a crime by the prosecutor in the State of Florida after killing someone whom he had no evident right to kill.

    NOW, hysteria about his “lynching” is a bit premature. AND since “First Degree Murder” is off the table, Anon, your protectorate is out of danger.

    But let’s look at why FIRST DEGREE MURDER actually IS off the table. It’s not because Corey made her decision based on the attitudes of Dershowitz or Turley — after all, they are defense folks and she’s a prosecutor. I am guessing First Degree (premeditated at some point) was off the table because Corey didn’t want to deal with EITHER a grand jury OR a death sentence case.

    Neither would I, in her position.

    But I was looking at the facts, only those that are already more or less accepted, on little index cards, and I was thinking, “Gee, if I were a writer, and I had these facts and had to write a one-act play called ‘What George Did on the Night In Question,” what would I actually write for the lead actor to portray. Oh, by the way, in this fantasy I am also the director and the casting director.

    We, “George” and I, workshop this together after I have the first draft.

    Oh wait a minute, I have to go back and listen to the 911 tape with “Jeremy GET IN HERE” on it…OK…get back to you later.

  235. So I was saying, I could have it go like this:

    (1) Guy is becoming kinda desperate because he’s not getting ahead in his criminal justice school, not really getting his neighborhood completely behind him in his quest to be the next Clark Kent, and can’t seem to become a decorated hero;

    (2) Guy feels overwhelmed with his need to be more than ordinary ho hum possibly not-as-great-as-someone-else and goes out, evening, 2/26/2012 to find and apprehend, single-handedly, the bad guy who has been terrorizing his neighborhood;

    (3) Guy sees really suspicious, possibly drugged, grey-hoodie-clad guy just lookin’ about, yep, that’s him…

    (4) Guy calls cops but doesn’t think they’re jumping on this one fast enough — yup, he’s gotto go into action to do what they aren’t doing fast enough, twiddling their thumbs, leaving the real wet work up to HIM;

    (5) Guy jumps into action — nobody STOP HIM — HE’S a HERO —

    OK, actor, I say, now we have a few things our fight choreographer will have to work on but for now, let’s just get George’s motivation clear.

    Oops– I think I need to hear that tape again, catch me later —

  236. Malisha, I can imagine different scenarios, in which Zimmerman cried for help, can’t you? I am doing this for you all, so will you f****ing come and help me to detain this criminal till the police arrives? What else but help would you scream in such a situation? Is there a different vocal signal to call attention? Strictly you could even scream to disguise a cold-blooded SYG murder.

    I also find it easy to imagine Trayvon reacted with fury to the obvious prejudice, he was confronted with. Notice I am not saying this justifies Zimmerman’s reaction. …

    In hindsight it makes sense to assume, it was in fact Trayvon that screamed. But to do that, wouldn’t he have needed the information that he was in imminent danger to loose his life? But did he ever have it? Concerning information, Zimmerman clearly had an advantage, no matter how biased his information was. If Zimmerman didn’t tell him, Trayvon hardly had a chance to completely understand, what was happening to him, why this guy watched and followed him. He may have even wanted to find out, instead of running back to the backdoor of the house were he stood. The curious among us, find it hard to accept all the things out there in the world we will never understand. Did his girlfriend show interest in what this guy was about too?

    The police had Zimmerman reenact the encounter, they also asked him to scream the next morning, if I remember correctly. This is no scientific expertise, but at least has to sound similar to an untrained ear, to leave out possible technical distortion for a while.

    Did Trayvon’s father initially say that it wasn’t his son’s voice, because he felt at that age he wouldn’t have liked to appear as a weakling: no thank you, I can help myself, or did they suggest they had tested it? Questions, questions, questions.

  237. am doing this for you all, so will you f****ing come and help me to detain this criminal till the police arrives?
    He was advised don;t follow after callinig 911. Had no reason to try and detain him.
    And Martin had just as much reason to think he was being followed by a criminal. Why is this guy following me? I ask that when someone stays behind me when I am walking alone.
    Both sides have their valid points but I dont get the defense of one or the other since at the end of the day it is fun debate but no one seems to want to change their mind and all the facts are still not in.

  238. OK, wow, I listened again and again.

    Now, I would enter into an argument with Professor Turley and Alan Dershowitz BOTH that Zimmerman has been “overcharged.”

    I am not saying this is EVIDENCE yet because it will be EVIDENCE when and if there is a trial and it is placed on the record as EVIDENCE and evaulated by the jury, but for right now? I just listened about two dozen times to the 911 call from the woman who was upstairs in her house while the shot that killed Martin rang out, ending the loud screams.

    My ears heard the following:

    “Go away, Go away”
    Then a sound that was a sharp retort, sounded peculiarly strangely like a gunshot to me, but I’m no ballistics expert.
    Then a sound like wordless screaming, could be “nooooooooooooooh” but could be something else,
    THEN something that is DEFINITELY a gunshot,
    then silence. And the woman calling in tells the dispatcher there were “gunshots.” The dispatcher asks how many, and the woman says “one.” But she was SPEAKING when that first sharp retort occurred; and she was worried about where her own family was in the house, and she was afraid.

    I don’t know what that woman calling 911 heard; I only know what I heard. I did not hear the word “HELP,” by the way. Roaring shouts, “O” sounds and long O and U vowels — did not hear “Help” with “eh” sounds.

    But I’m no audio engineer. Just sayin’…

  239. He was advised don;t follow after callinig 911. Had no reason to try and detain him.

    Yes, but it wasn’t an order, and he obviously didn’t obey. Why else would he needed to tell the dispatcher to ask the arriving officers to first call him, so he could tell them where to meet him?

    We do not know, if he left the car at the clubhouse or moved it somewhere else. Or do we in fact?

    His 911 statement clearly suggest he “suffered”, he in fact wailed like child, about “them” always getting away. I also hear clearly the racist term uttered by him under his breath.

    leejcaroll, I am absolutely on the side of TM, let there be no doubt about it. It feels had Zimmerman given Trayvon even a limited chance, he wouldn’t be dead now.

    On the other hand imagine a mind blocked by certainty interpreting the following statement: I am on a visit here., to the question, what are you doing here? I even can imagine Trayvon saying: Why the f**ck should I tell you?

    An experience is in the back of my mind: I once in my life felt a deep fear of death. I didn’t even have a chance to scream for help. No one would have heard it, but I surely thought about visual signals then, but came up empty. There aren’t any. But I had one huge advantage, it feels in hindsight, that Trayvon never had. The highly peculiar paraphernalia I was confronted with sent a clear message. I doubt Trayvon had these clear signals, and only if you have them, it feels, you can speed up your mind what to do best. A passage from Dostoevsky’s idiot, helped me to come up with a bluff carefully anchored in reality. It worked. I got me out of the trap.

  240. I’m thinking about this scene. It plays over and over and over again. Go awaaaaayyyyyyyy, go awaaaaayyyyyy, and then a sharp retort, then oooouououououuuuuuououououuuu…a gunshot, silence (except for the continuation of the 911 call itself and a sort of scuffly background) —

    It seems possible to me that a guy who was pumped up on adrenalin at that moment might even have pulled his gun to make sure the asshole “punk” came under control — so that he could deliver his quarry to the police when they arrived, and collect his gold medal for saving the neighborhood. Go awaaayyyy, go awaaaaayyyyy, sharp retort, ooooouououououoouuuu, gunshot —

    Do we know to trust the police officers at all? Do we know to trust enough to say there were NOT TWO SHOTS? Any evidence bags? Any inspection of what was wrapped in the jacket and shoved into the trunk of the patrol car?

    And Lee trying to resign and not permitted to do so — yet. What is the meaning of that? What is the meaning of any of it?

    If this is self-defense, we are ALL IN BIG TROUBLE HERE. Almost any armed person might defend themselves against us TO DEATH at any time.

  241. Malisha, I have been wondering about the city not letting the police chief resign since I first heard about it yesterday. There could be a number of reasons, but if he is still a city employee, they may want to keep him under control and not ‘go rogue’ on them. That is just one possibility. Or maybe they just belive in him, which is a scary thougth all by itself.

    This is like everythiing else in this soap opera. We will just have to let it play out and see what crawls out from under the wet rocks.

  242. You are correct Malisha, there is another gunshot-like noise shortly before the real gunshot.about 07:16:38.Gunshot 07:16:56.

    One of the scenarios whirling through my head at one point was that the scream for help by Trayvon triggered the shot. Somehow making him aware that things may not be as he assumed, and the incident might have consequences for him. Given the extraordinary short time frame, could have led to an impulsive action.

    On the other hand we are asked to swallow–can I use that in English figuratively?–that Trayvon was such a hardcore fighter that he didn’t even respond to the painful cries of surrender by Zimmerman? But add to that a inexperienced youth, and the extremely short time span … It takes time to get the adrenaline from your body.

    Yesterday I immediately repented my responses above, maybe I will today. I hate to admit, but maybe the most realistic scenario is that Trayvon somehow behaved in a way that seemingly supported Zimmerman’s suspicion without Trayvon having a chance to realize. If what we know is correct, the whole encounter up to the shot wasn’t even close to one minute. There is not much time to reflect if you respond to a provocation.

    You can be sure that just like us, Zimmerman listens to these tapes carefully, maybe even an unedited edition. He could claim to have fired a warning shot.

    Besides if Gilbraith (?) stated during the bond hearing that the FBI investigation of the scream wasn’t conclusive, maybe there aren’t really safe methods to differentiate screams. What would Zimmerman’s curricula in associate criminal law have told him about the issue? Did he learn, one could be relatively sure, no one was able to completely tell, with one of the persons gone?

    I’d like to know more about this man: Frank Taaffe and witness John.

    I think this case made me change my mind about an American I respected up to this point. I may not completely understand America, but it was easy to see that he let pass the most rabid racist language while censoring or banning people that wrote quite rational responses on his blogs. Ultimately a NRA member, may consider Trayvon’s dead much less important that than his/her constitutional rights. “The racist”, wrote, it’s about winners and losers and Trayvon is simply another loser, so why care?

  243. In every statement there’s a little error, and the error gets bigger and bigger until the snake is scotched.

    wasn’t even close to one minute.= was only close to a minute.

  244. Leander, I’m sorry, I got confused. I’m going to read and re-read your last comment — maybe tonight, after an extra cup of coffee. I want to understand it, may I say, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND every piece of it. I will try.

    Otteray Scribe, my kid had a whippet (Argos, died 3/17/2011, RIP) who used to look at me when he was confused by something, and he used to tip his elegant head and do a little wiggly thing with his ears, and that was the most emotionally evocative thing I think I have ever seen that wasn’t officially called “dance.” I wish I could do that with respect to two or three developments in this case, and one of them, the recent pas de deux between Lee and the Council.

    I keep thinking, (Argosian-head-tip-ear-wiggle) hmmmmm? hmmmmm? hmmmmm?

    I am even beginning to think the whole thing happened in a way that was even worse than the worst I can presently imagine, especially considering the fact that the police probably initially thought Trayvon Martin was unrelated to ANYONE IN THE AREA and therefore might be a nameless Potter Field homeless or runaway forever, with the body never identified.

    Ugh, I don’t like this.
    Ugh, I do not like this.

  245. I probably missed this somewhere along the line but did Zimmerman have anything on that indicated he was with a “watch”? Why would Martin answer any question as to what he was doing there absent some reason that appeared to be official? Heck, my response and I am a short white woman, would be, Why is that any of your business?

  246. no, leejcaroll, definitively not. There are color images of him in the red jacket he wore, same as in the police video.

    I do not, by the way, believe Zimmerman was on his way to a shop. I think he was on his night-patrol, or lying in wait at the front entrance. I think, Taaffe talks about Zimmerman’s night patrols in the video above. If not there than somewhere else.

    I seem to remember Taaffe was in charge of the Neighborhood watch before Zimmerman, but I am only starting to save interesting links. Did he introduce him to his job? Who is John?

    To Trayon it makes no difference anyway, what exactly he did that night, it may well have been a chance encounter. …

    But if “Dee Dee”, Trayvon’s girl fiend tells us the truth, and if the time is correct, Zimmerman doesn’t go to any length to introduce himself as a the top representative of the neighborhood watch member:. See those signs out there, this is a patrolled community. What are you doing here? After all Tayvon wasn’t an authority like the police dispatcher, so why tell this “real suspicious guy”, who he is? Does my prejudice show again?

  247. stutter, stutter:
    himself as a the top representative of the neighborhood watch member

    I am in a hurry:
    introduce himself as the top neighborhood patrol captain.

  248. Bottom line for me: I think Zimmerman was wrong, whether he will be found guilty of illegal behavior that is something else.

  249. Plenty of people are wrong, and they can get off whether they are right or wrong, and in general, that is pretty much OK, but in this case, part of the problem was that he SEEMED to be quite in the wrong on 2/26/2012 and yet, at that time, the police (NOT in the judicial branch of govt. but in the executive, law enforcement branch) usurped judicial power to decide on their own that he was RIGHT so they short-circuited the whole system. Now that the case is in the judicial department, where it belongs, we have folks carrying on as if it shouldn’t be there (or, in the case of Professor Dershowitz, that it shouldn’t be there very MUCH and that the prosecutor shouldn’t have placed it there so MUCH).

    It is in the court system now, no matter what happens. That was what the demonstrations and the public outcry was all about.

    I agree with you, Leejcaroll, that we are free to continue to think him wrong even if he is acquitted. And we will be permitted to continue to say that, too.

    Lizzie Borden was acquitted. And whereas she was CHARGED with the killing of her father, she was NEVER charged with the killing of her step-mother. If Zimmerman is acquitted, we can still write songs about him. I’m gonna register for a little song-writing course at “Autodidact U” this coming semester. Let me try first draft, just in case:

    Oh Suzanna, now don’t you cry for me,
    ’cause I killed a coon in Florida and now I’m walkin’ free.

  250. Malisha said:

    “If Zimmerman is acquitted, we can still write songs about him. I’m gonna register for a little song-writing course at “Autodidact U” this coming semester. Let me try first draft, just in case”

    Which causes me to wonder whether you have ever served on a Felony-case jury.

    And if so, how early in the case did you decide to stop listening to evidence.

    Some people sharpen their minds by narrowing them.

  251. Well Patricparamedic, I would not SERVE on the jury for the Zimmerman case for the reason that I decided, when I heard that Zimmerman FOLLOWED Martin while HE knew that HE was packing, that he WAS the aggressor, so if I were chosen for a jury pool in the Zimmerman case, and they asked me if I was already decided on the issue of guilt, I would say, honestly, “HELL YES I am decided on the issue of guilt. I don’t think you get to go stalking a person you don’t know, after deciding you didn’t like their look, while YOU are armed with a gun, and you have in your past some kind of anger management issue, and then cry innocence if you happen to kill them, so knock me off this jury RIGHT NOW because I AM DECIDED, and I’d just as soon work for the prosecutor as sit here wasting my time.”

    So see, I would not call myself impartial and I would not take part in a faked-up parody of justice. BUT I would go ahead and tell the truth about my mind, and how my mind worked.

    See, some people are impartial about this. I am not one of them.

  252. Oh, and “have I ever served on a felony case jury” — no. But if I was asked to do so, I would answer questions honestly during voir dire. And I would probably write a song about it afterwards. Maybe one called:

    Justice Justice, how much can you buy?
    Oh Your Honor, let me try!
    Two for the lawyers, one for the press,
    And ten for the judges who have made this mess!

    (Smiley face, little music note)

  253. Another WTF moment and a twist on “Show us your papers, please.”:

    “The couple did not have their closing papers with them, and could not prove that they owned the home.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/georgia-couple-held-at-gunpoint_n_1449439.html

    “A Georgia couple who were trying to move into their new home were confronted by neighbors at gunpoint before they were then arrested and held overnight in jail.

    Jean-Joseph and Angelica Kalonji said they were told by their real estate agent to go to their new home in Newton County and change the locks. Their son had just purchased the home, and the entire family was slated to move in.

    But when they arrived and tried to enter, two neighbors, Robert Canoles and his 18-year-old son, Branden, snuck up behind the Kalonjis with semiautomatic weapons.

    “He [said] to put the hands up and get out from the house, otherwise he would shoot us,” Jean Kalonji, who hails from the Congo, told a local television station.

    The Kalonjis said they were held by the gunmen for 10 minutes with their hands above heir heads, and that they thought they were being robbed.

    The couple did not have their closing papers with them, and could not prove that they owned the home. When deputies arrived, they arrested the Kalonjis and charged them with loitering and prowling.

    The sheriff’s deputies who arrived at the scene commended the two neighbors for their response.
    “The police told me I did a good job,” said the elder Canoles. He said deputies did not question him on the night of the incident.

    But the gun-toting father and son were arrested Monday night and have been charged with aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal trespassing. “We are on the ground flood with this as far looking into exactly what occurred and why it occurred,” a sheriff’s spokesman said.

    On Monday, the Kalonjis met with their attorney, as well as with the sheriff’s office. “They just spontaneously arrested him, arrested his wife, threw them in the jail, made no phone calls, made no efforts to verify to the truthfulness of what they were saying and told the people with the guns, in essence, ‘Thank you for your good service, you can go back home now,'” the Kalonji’s attorney said to WSBTV.

    But the Kalonjis told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that they have reservations about the new home. “We’re waiting to move,” their son Bruno said. “We’re still afraid of what the guy next door might do.”

  254. Yeah, we’re living in an armed society where people are “protecting their own” even when they don’t own it.

    Look out.

  255. You know, recently there has been a sort of trend on the threads about the State v. Zimmerman case, and that trend has been to criticize those of us who believe that Zimmerman was wrong and culpable and criminally responsible for killing Martin as if we were not allowed to really think that. As if there was some fundamental flaw to our believing that at all, as if we were not allowed to form an opinion about it “before the evidence is in.” That’s just ridiculous. We are allowed to form our opinion on it. We’re not lynching anybody; we’re not prejudiced against anybody; we have our opinions and obviously we cannot be expected to be impartial for the very reason that we HAVE OUR OPINIONS on it. But there is nothing at all inherently wrong with our believing that Zimmerman was wrong and culpable and criminally responsible for killing Martin. There WOULD BE something wrong with our thinking that and hiding that opinion and serving on a jury. There WOULD BE something wrong with our actually lynching Zimmerman, obviously. There WOULD BE something wrong with our trying to bribe some judge or public official to act on our belief instead of following the law that the State of Florida had already set out for use in a case like this. But should we all pretend not to believe what we firmly believe? Why? Because there are those who have the opposite belief and who want to characterize our belief as inherently wrongful?

    By the way, before the Eichmann trial, I had decided he was guilty of whatever was charged, no matter what was charged. So I would not have sat on his jury, even if I were an Israeli and by Israeli law I would be entitled to do so. I hadn’t decided on OJ’s guilt before his trial because I had never heard of him, didn’t know anything about the “car chase” in the white van, and only heard abuot the whole thing when it was well underway. I had no real opinion about Casey Anthony’s guilt or innocence, but I thought the prosecutor did not have enough valid evidence to convict her for murder, so I would have acquitted her if I were on that jury. (Again, I was not a Floridian.) I have read cases where the prosecutors hid exculpatory evidence and gained a conviction that way; where they had “jailhouse informants” who were so obviously lying that it was a joke; where they played upon jury prejudice and rage to convict when there was no real evidence and even when the grand jury presentations were corrupt. It happens. Our system is seriously, SERIOUSLY flawed. And I’m more often defense-aligned than prosecution-aligned. But now I believe in the guilt of the defendant and I’m not the least big ashamed of that fact.

    I remember some TV interview where the interviewer asked Joe Lieberman (while he wa ons the presidential ticket in 1999): “People are saying you’re the most liberal Democrat in the Senate; is that true?” Lieberman reacted as if you had asked him, “Is it true that you’re the worst person on earth?” He vociferously denied that he was the most liberal Senator. I asked myself, then, “Why did he act like he had been insulted?” Of course, that was before he changed his spots.

    But the word “liberal” has been used with disdain and contempt for a long time as if it is per se wrong to be liberal, and therefore to admit to being liberal, and blah blah blah. Well, that kind of reminds me of what is going on with folks trying to make other folks defend themselves against charges that they have already decided on Zimmerman’s guilt. You know something, I have already decided on Zimmerman’s guilt. Since I am not swearing on oath to judge him impartially as a decider of fact in a court of law, that’s my perfect right. Oh, and I’m also a liberal.

  256. Otteray Scribe, here’s what my meditation has been kicking up about the possibilities right now.

    Background: The feds are still investigating the situation. NOT to see whether Zimmerman should be charged or not (and Corey has stolen their fire if they wanted to talk about hate crimes, because she defined the “epithet” as “punks”) but about whether or not there was unlawful conduct going on in Wolfinger’s office or by the police that night and shortly thereafter.

    Theorem: If Zimmerman is convicted, the investigation has to come up with something. Too much attention is focused on it for there to be just a sort of Saturday-Night-Live Rosanne Rosannadanna “NEVERMIND” at the end.

    Two possibilities come to mind right away. I’m sure there are 100 more:

    1. Corey lets her team throw the case and the City Council keeps Lee out of the limelight for a while so the thing can blow over and then, the feds have to say, “We can’t nail anybody for corruption because the acquittal proved the cops’ and Wolfinger’s point that they couldn’t charge Zimmerman simply because he couldn’t be convicted, so the whole thing is now moot and we can go home.” Corey is eventually rewarded for letting herself take a temporary hit — later on, when the light is turned down, and after all, she tried… Lee is then put back as head of the police because in the final analysis, he just did what had to be done that tragic night, when it was so clear to him that it was impossible to convict on the “evidence” they saw. Perhaps there is some misplaced attention focused on the “stand your ground” law and neighborhood watch programs, and finally, everyone is tired and blah blah blah…

    2. Corey doesn’t let her team throw the case, she really means to win, and she does, and she gets a conviction. Then there can either be real serious investigations coming out later about how the cops and Wolfinger and Lee messed up that night, and somebody’s head will roll — perhaps not too far. The gun guys and the corporate guys will rescue whoever falls out of the tipped-over hammock in Sanford, you can be sure of that. If this happens, I think we will be seeing a lot of the evidence that WAS available that night, and that did NOT get in front of the press at all up until this point. But of course, there might not be a trial (Zimmerman might plead to manslaughter in return for a small sentence so that there won’t be a continuing problem in Sanford). Hard to tell. But if that happens, a plea bargain I mean, I will bet that part of the bargain will be a political arrangement so that the feds can close the case without much more real investigation.

    Our habit, unfortunately, as a culture, is to say that things are either moot or no longer an issue.

    Cowardice. We will not self-correct.

  257. NEWS * * * NEWS * * * NEWS

    LATER TODAY MORE EVIDENCE WILL BE RELEASED, SOME OF IT FROM THE F.B.I. INVESTIGATION. ALSO GEORGE’S EX-GIRLFRIEND.

    PROMISES TO BE INTERESTING.

    OH, ALSO FROM THE INTERVIEW OF FRANK TAAFFE, “EX-WATCH-CAPTAIN” AND CO-WALTER-MITTY.

  258. Malisha,
    Once the World and Alice Kinston are spammers. To sniff out spammers, look for nonsense irrelevant comments about how great the site is, and usernames that are links. DO NOT CLICK THE USERNAME LINK. Most of those are just to drive traffic to a sales pitch, but some will download malware to your computer.

    Also note awkward syntax which is a dead giveaway that English is not the first language. Most come from either China or Russia, although no country is exempt.

  259. Thanks OS

    RE: Cries for Help even if they were George —

    New evidence (really was old, but I never noticed it) shows that someone (Let’s call this person the Neighborhood-AntiZim, or NEBAZ) called the cops to complain about George’s “tactics” well before Trayvon was killed. NEBAZ was “escorted out” of the NW meeting on 3/1/2012 — probably by Chief Bill Lee, who was there doing damage control.

    So I believe George went out on 2/28/2012 looking to provoke SOME incident of “violence” so he could “show” that a gun was needed on patrol.

    HE WAS TRYING TO PROVOKE A VIOLENT EPISODE AT THE RETREAT!

    It kinda reminds me of the administration before 9/11, trying to justify war…

    Of course, there were people willing to DO HARM on 9/11; Trayvon was not willing to do any violence on 2/26/2012 so the analogy is not a good one with regard to the actual events of that evening in Sanford, but the mindset: “These people have to learn that we really need to kill folks to protect ourselves.”

  260. OH I FORGOT to explain the link-up.

    George calls NEN but does not identify himself as NW volunteer.
    He sets up the idea that TM is dangerous.
    Then he alights to neutralize the danger.
    HE may actually scream HELP HELP HELP to show that just being there won’t work, and that only the GUN saved him, because then he can say, “I was screaming help help but nobody would help me…”

    Thus justifying his use of the gun.

    OTherwise, why not tell the cops, “This is GZ, the NW Captain of The Retreat…”?

  261. Here is the text that I referred to, and which I have been mulling over for several days now. It appeared well before Zimmerman was charged with murder.

    “Zimmerman, who patrolled the Retreat at Twin Lakes development in his own car, had been called aggressive in earlier complaints to the local police and the homeowner’s association, according to a homeowner who spoke on the condition of anonymity.” [I am sure that if I were a homeowner who had made such a complaint against George to the police, I would not want him to know I was now speaking with the media!]

    “At an emergency homeowner’s association meeting on March 1, ‘one man was escorted out because he openly expressed his frustration because he had previously contacted the Sanford Police Department about Zimmerman approaching him and even coming to his home,’ the resident wrote in an email to HuffPost. ‘It was also made known that there had been several complaints about George Zimmerman and his tactics’ in his neighborhood watch captain role.

    “The meeting was attended by Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee, the detective assigned to the investigation and an unnamed member of the city council, according to the homeowner’s association newsletter. The chief couldn’t immediately be reached for comment about the complaints. A member of the homeowner’s association board, who asked not to be quoted by name, said she “hadn’t heard about any complaints” about Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s phone number is disconnected and efforts to reach him have been unsuccessful.

    “Talk of prior complaints against Zimmerman comes as pressure mounts on law enforcement. Protesters have gathered outside Sanford police headquarters. The Martin’s family and attorneys have held press conferences calling the killing an outrage and pleading for Zimmerman’s arrest. High school classmates and citizens are granting interviews to reporters asking why no one has been charged. And as the story continues to gain national media attention, civil rights leaders, including members of the NAACP and the Rev. Al Sharpton, said they are preparing to join the family of Martin, who was black. Zimmerman is white.”

    ================== =================== ============

    OK, as the developments have come out, and the “evidence of serious injury to Zimmerman” and the Dershowitz outrage that Corey “overcharged” the case and so forth and so on, it almost seems that attention to these details has melted away like fog in late morning.

    Why would that be?

    Because here’s an alternative explanation to the reason George might have called out “Help Help” even though he was not being beaten up:

    1. George’s original plan for the evening of 2/26/2012 was not to protect the community from marauders, but to protect himself from being either kicked out of the Neighborhood Watch or from being sternly informed, by the police, that he was not permitted to “patrol” while armed and dangerous. I think George might have wanted to stage an event on that evening that would have “shown” his chicken-hearted neighbors that he really DID need to carry his gun around to protect them all from the bad guys, and that he should not be restrained.

    2. Since there had been probably some issues with him calling 911, and maybe even he had been told that his many “cry-wolf” calls to 911 were not appreciated, he probably chose to call the non-emergency number on 2/26/2012, to alert them to the “danger” in his neighborhood without really getting them out there to deal with a problem — very quickly.

    3. Note: HE DID NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH VOLUNTEER TO THE DISPATCHER. There were questions about why he didn’t identify himself to Trayvon Martin (by his own admission); the more important question is why he didn’t do so when he called the NEN police line to report a suspicious guy walking around “just looking about.”

    4. Perhaps George’s real goal would have been:

    a. Let the police know there is something possibly bad about to happen;

    b. Report it as a non-emergency so that he has a “report” in the file about the suspicion to be cast upon the target of his action;

    c. Provoke violence from the “suspect” before the police show up so that he, George, has to deal with it himself in order to protect himself and the community; and then

    d. Pull his gun so that he can show that the loaded gun was absolutely necessary to the successful community-protection mission.

    =========================
    PROBLEM: Trayvon Martin was not a criminal.
    PROBLEM: Trayvon Martin did not go along with the program.
    PROBLEM: Although Chief Lee initially took care of making sure it was listed as self-defense, and although Chief Lee initially also took care of “escorting out” of the Neighborhood Watch any dissenting voice, Chief Lee’s protection and assistance in the game of “SEE WE ALL NEED ME TO BE ARMED AND DANGEROUS AROUND HERE” was quickly neutralized when this case got bigger than Chief Lee was.

    =============================

    I think George went out that evening with the specific intent to NEED to defend himself.

    ================================
    This has to do with the SYG laws. It also has to do with the program that is very much backed by the NRA and the ALEC agenda. In other words, if folks like George Zimmerman could, with police backing, prove that they needed to be armed at all times to protect the poor victimized citizens from being harmed, then private corporations’ security people would also need to be armed for the same reason (bye bye union problems) and basically anybody who felt threatened (by what? YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID, THUGS!) could deal with the threats as they needed to in order to establish law and order in our great nation.

    George is still, in his way, a test case for the “I need to be armed at all times to kill those obvious anti-American thugs who want to decrease my power” philosophy backed by the NRA, ALEC, and a certain very active and very numerous segment of our paranoid population.

  262. Zimmerman IS a young man, 28 years old on the day of the shooting. He certainly doesn’t have a deep voice. These “experts” are using invalid criteria comparing a speaking tone with a desperate cry for help. They also haven’t used Trayvon’s voice for comparison, apparently because his parents haven’t given a sample (which they doubtless must have, but probably don’t want to give for fear of proving that their son is a basso profundo just like his father). Primeau’s own website shows he is anything but unbiased in his assessment of GZ and the case.

  263. The added weight will be just enough resistance to burn a few extra calories.
    Place all ingredients in a bowl and mix well until well combined (best using hands.
    In the event you follows our tips, you will find accomplishment at efficiently dropping the body weight you want to reduce and not regaining
    it.

Comments are closed.