Slashdot Mirror
Forensic Experts Say Screams Were Not Zimmerman's
Hugh Pickens writes "As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot? Now the Orlando Sentinel reports that Tom Owen, a leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings. His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help. Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion. Owen 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,' says Owen. The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice and returned a 48 percent match. Owen says to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent. Owen cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare however 'you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman.'"
Zimmerman's claim of being badly beaten up before he shot the kid doesn't hold up either: there's some footage taken at the police station the night of his arrest, and he looks totally unharmed. No cuts to the back of the head, no broken nose, nothing. Guy's story has more holes than... eh, I'm on my eighteenth hour without sleep due to a project and can't come up with an apt metaphor, but something with a lot of holes.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Really? Slashdot has frequent coverage of human rights, crime, law enforcement. Technology alone isn't the only subject Slashdot readers are interested in. It just so happens that technology and forensics do play a role in this story. However even if they didn't, this is a huge story, and well worth covering on Slashdot.
Has this software been subjected to repeated double-blind testing? Otherwise, there's no point in reporting this.
While I'm personally of the opinion that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, I've also seen too many cases of "forensic science" of dubious validity being allowed in trials (for example Steven Hayne in Mississippi help convict dozens of people on the base of 'bite mark identification' techniques that are widely considered fraudulent). Can anyone point to any independent blind trials to demonstrate 1) that the metrics used by this program actually are invariant for a particular individual and 2) are sufficiently unique that they can be used to reliably distinguish two individuals?
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion, which obeys no law and follows no procedure. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than have my life torn to pieces in a three-ring media circus.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
all the actual techies have left and been replaced with libertarian trolls.
Huh? I remember way back when quoting Ayn Rand on Slashdot was a sure ticket to +5 Insightful. And you say that Slashdot is infested with libertarian trolls now?
If only the guy who shot another person without witnesses would have been actually *investigated*, instead of letting him walk entirely on his own testimony...
I agree, he shouldn't be facing the court of public opinion. He should be facing the court of law. It certainly doesn't look like that is happening.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I'd be very, very leery of trying to do any sort of "voice print analysis" on the basis of recorded cellphone audio. There's a lot of coding artifacts. After all, the goal is to allow people to communicate, not to convey voice identity.
You can run voice through a fairly low bit rate LPC coder and it's quite intelligible on the other end, and actually "sounds" like the speaker, but if you look at the spectrogram, it's totally different. Your ear hears the dominant formants in the vowels, and you recognize speakers by that. LPC basically encodes the vocal tract as a 8-10 term filter plus a buzz excitation source. "voice print id" depends more on fine structure, which is lost in the encoding/decoding. It would be like trying to identify a paper document that was watermarked by looking at a photocopy. The watermark may or may not come through, but the intelligibility of the document is the same either way.
It's not a question of guilt or innocence, Zimmerman is guilty of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. That is not in question at all. The question is whether he was legally justified in doing so. Unfortunately, one side of the story (Trayvon) has been removed and cannot be heard.
A human being *died*. A young man was shot and killed while bearing only a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. An investigation of more than simply accepting the word of the shooter is definitely warranted.
"Trial by social media". "Trial by the self-righteous" Glad we have court systems to sort out all these rumors.
Even if Zimmerman was the one screaming
He followed and confronted someone for no good reason, even after having been explicitly told (by 911 operator) to stay away
Even if Zimmeriman screamed through the whole process, the killing of Trayvon is not justified.
The worst part about this is that the DA office doesn't seem to understand that "Stand Your Ground" is just an affirmative defense against a crime, not a magic spell that means someone can't be arrested.
I agree, he shouldn't be facing the court of public opinion. He should be facing the court of law. It certainly doesn't look like that is happening.
It looks increasingly likely that he will face a jury. And when he does, the jury will likely be informed of Fla. Stats. 776.041, which states:
776.041âfUse of force by aggressor.â"The justification [of self defense] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)âfIs attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)âfInitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)âfSuch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)âfIn good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
To be brutally honest, I think both his attackers and his defenders sound very silly to me in making bold statements before the facts are in. The prudent thing to do is to simply say that we are not going to condemn him or exonerate him until the process plays out and renders a verdict.
[ Note, I'm not saying that everyone must accept the results of the process -- just because it's the legal result doesn't mean we have to personally believe it. But there is a difference between disagreeing with the result after it happens and jumping to your own conclusion before it has been conducted. The former seems to me reasonable, the latter not so much. ]
There aren't "well established facts" in this case. At least not that are known to the general public. Cases tried in the media tend to be enormously biased because they are about generating interest not about reliable evidence. For instance, was Zimmerman's nose broken and the back of his head injured or not? We don't know but such evidence would obviously make a big difference in the case.
I agree.
Is it self defence if I am breaking into someone's else home, they grab a knife and "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Clearly no. The homeowner has the right to defend themselves from the instigator.
Is it self defence if I stalk someone walking down the road and they "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Or let's ask it backwards.
If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I am followed and stalked by another are they allowed to kill me when I defend myself?
EVEN if Zimmerman found himself defending himself he should still be investigated as evidence indicates that he is defending himself from an event he initiated.
Trayvon, per mobile conversation with his girlfriend:
""He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'
She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me""
Florida stalking law arguably shows that Trayvon was being stalked. Easily as arguable as the "stand your ground" arguement. And that would mean that he was killed by someone in the commision of a crime.
"FLORIDA
Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person."
We have an unarmed victim, making the supposed deadly threat unlikely. That would mean Zimmerman shot him without a credible fear for his life. We have evidence that the victim was attempting to retreat (evenm though not obligated to do so) which further suggests there was no threat to Zimmerman's life. Of the two people there, one of them who was not Zimmerman was screaming for help. Again, that makes the claim that Zimmerman was reasonably fearful for his life look rather weak.
It's not SYG at all.
Zimmerman was a ranking member of the "neighborhood watch", and should eligible for a kind of "sovereign immunity" like cops have when they blast away at unarmed "threats".
"...unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful"
Probable cause is the standard for making an arrest in any case. Police routinely cite it with weaker justification than in this case, one which offers ample basis for a probable-cause arrest. Y'know... if they wanted to.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
None of those three items are laws, the breaking of which would be chargeable offenses. Carrying the gun was legal, as was observing someone in public (or a private neighborhood which Zimmerman was responsible for securing). If Martin attacked him, he was the first and only person who broke a law.
After the Richard Jewel case I don't get into rush to judgement any more.
However the initial response of the police to let Zimmerman walk without a real investigation deserves a whole lot of criticism. Now we are getting the investigation so hopefully the facts will become evident.
The weird thing I don't get about the "stand your ground" law in this case is how it can apply to both people. By his own account, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a gun and was not in a marked security vehicle or wearing any sort of uniform, nor did he identify himself in any way as being part of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman had never shot Martin, but Martin had been arrested for attacking Zimmerman (and I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just looking at Zimmerman's claimed version of events), then "stand your ground" should have been a viable defense for him. He was the one in fear for his life being chased by a suspicious stranger armed with a gun.
Everything that's been revealed about Zimmerman seems to show that he's basically a hyper-aggressive Gladys Kravitz with a gun. In the past he'd called 911 to report suspicious 7-9 year old black males, kids playing in the street, and, apparently, his landlord demanding the rent money. He forced this situation and someone else ended up dead. He's clearly at least guilty of manslaughter.
You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help?
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Not really. There's 2 essential elements to charging manslaughter in Florida, and Zimmerman meets them.
They are, (1) Trayvon Martin is dead and (2) George Zimmerman killed him.
I don't give a shit about anything else. Zimmerman can tell his story to a Judge, and if the Judge buys his motion to dismiss, then so be it.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
It's always bothered me that forensic science doesn't involve science. It would be easy enough to reproduce the events using the same phone and recording equipment and voice samples with a few different people to establish a baseline for what we "should" expect. But instead they simply can't be bothered with scientific controls. We are just supposed to take their word for it that it should be a "90%" match. I'm this context we don't even know what 90% means.
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Fabulous! New information! I'm for new information. Here is a link showing the eye witness I'm referring to:
And here is another report, which seems consistent with the above, and seems to be someone different:
And of course Zimmerman was treated on the scene for head injuries, which is again consistent with the other reports.
As it was, the police took Zimmerman in for questioning in handcuffs, and released him. They know where he lives.
Do you have a link for me?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You know what? I'm not playing this game.
There is no such thing as "injuries severe enough to justify lethal force". If someone has reasonable cause to fear for their safety, if you injure them at all, they are justified in using any and all available force to stop you from injuring them further. Period.
Don't like it? Don't start fights you can't win. And since concealed carry is legal (and Zimmerman had a CCW permit, by the way), you have no way of knowing whether someone has a concealed weapon. So, the moral of the story: don't start fights.
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10909475-witness-mom-says-police-told-her-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense
Do you have a link for me?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/30/trayvon-martin-lawyers-evidence-leaks-zimmerman
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/neighbor-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense/
Like I said, the witness story is inconsistent; the problem is that either side cherry picks the lines that support their case. Which, to me, is a clear indication that this should go to trial, where they can properly examine the evidence, question the witnesses etc
I've tried to stick to the indisputable facts in forming my opinion on this case (of which there are few), but regardless of the legal outcome, it seems clear to me that Trayvon Martin did not need to die that night, and that his death was the result of George Zimmerman patrolling the neighborhood with a firearm and choosing to follow Martin.
Had Zimmerman not been patrolling, or had he been patrolling without a firearm, or had he been patrolling with a firearm but taken the 911 operator's suggestion and not followed Martin, Martin would not be dead.
Even if Zimmerman's actions were legally justified, it doesn't mean they were right or intelligent. I was assaulted in downtown Washington, DC in the middle of the day. I could have escalated the situation and probably have been legally justified in doing so, but for all I know I might have gotten myself stabbed or run down by the car the asshole was driving. And for what? And here, Martin is dead--for what?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Except he wouldn't have broken the law if he believed he was protecting himself. The beauty of the Florida stand your ground law is that it's so broad that had Martin killed Zimmerman he could have plead self defense. Except for the fact that he was black and not the son of a judge. Florida's stand your ground law protects the instigator. That's the point of stand your ground laws. Prior to SYG the standard was that you had to try and avoid or escape situations that require deadly force. Florida's statue is so broad that believing you are preventing a felony is a good enough reason to shoot to kill.
If "Stand your ground" means, that you can use deadly force against someone you feel threatened by if you are on your own hometurf, and Mr. Zimmerman can rightfully claim this, then how comes, Mr. Martin should not have the right to confront someone he feels threatened by with deadly force?
If Mr. Zimmerman had this right, then Mr. Martin had it more, because his fears were obviously justified.
The outrage in this case is because most people believe, if a person, particularly a child, is shot dead in the street, that there should be an accounting before a court of law for that death unless the evidence is overwhelming that no crime took place. Your race-baiting crime stats are irrelevant to the sense of fundamental injustice that people feel about an unaccounted death. If your child was killed while walking home from the store, you would want the perpetrator brought to justice regardless of whether his racial makeup fit into some convenient narrative you seem to think is so important.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
A guy gives you a "warning punch" in a shoulder in the midst on an argument. You feel pain, so you've been "injured". You take out your concealed gun and shoot the guy in the head.
You have to be reasonably concerned about your safety, and this is not reasonable. This is insane.
What, you doubt that version of events? You doubt that Zimmerman, who admittedly followed the kid and confronted him, was the aggressor?
Maybe Zimmerman was innocently keeping an eye on a suspicious, dark, menacing, hoodie-wearing black thug, who flew into a Skittles-crazed Ebonic-profanity laced attack when merely asked about his whereabouts, and fully deserved, therefore, to get gunned down like a sub-human animal? Well, maybe so. Maybe that's exactly what happened.
Let's have a court of law make a determination, is all people are saying.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
So, you are claiming that the police report [sanfordfl.gov] - made before this became a controversial case - is false?
Are you claiming it's not?
Watch the fucking video and decide for yourself if this dude looks like hes just had his head smashed and beaten into pavement.
In 2009 there were 2,867 black males killed in the United States, of which 2,604 were killed by other blacks, 209 killed by whites. Why the outrage in this case? Might it be various people made assumptions about how this would play out?
It might, might, might just have something to do with the fact that this was not such a cut and dry scenario, and the suspect wasn't arrested. Of those 2,867 killings you cite, how many of those killers were arrested for murder or manslaughter? How many of those cases were regarded as self-defense?
People are understandably quick to bring race into the equation, but on it's most underlying level, an unarmed boy was shot by a large adult with a gun and an arrest wasn't made. The unarmed boy was reportedly making a run for junk food for his younger brother, the armed man was at some point following the boy around after being advised not to because the police were on the way. It's suspicious, regardless of what color either character is.
Actually if you dig a little deeper, you'll find some information coming from the 13-year-olds mother which is quite interesting, and brings into question even more of the level of police work done eg leading questions, badgering, etc.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-george-zimmerman-killing-trayvon-martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Let's assume a large black man follows a 17-year-old white boy into an alley, claiming the boy looks suspicious. There, the black man shoots the white boy. The black man emerges with minor wounds to his head and claims that he, for unknown reasons, was attacked by the white boy, who, it turns out, had done nothing wrong and wasn't carrying anything suspicious. The prosecutor decides to not prosecute because they have no proof the black man didn't act in self-defence.
Would people be so quick to jump to the black man's defence?