Forensic Experts Say Screams Were Not Zimmerman's 1046
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.'"
In case you missed it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Funny)
More holes than Trayvon?
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Insightful)
While it would be interesting to hear what the EMTs saw, if they say he appeared to have been beaten you won't believe them.
I would totally believe the EMTs if they testified to that under oath in court. Of course I wouldn't really believe Zimmerman's claims, since he obviously has a bit of a bias
Problem is, he's not had to defend himself in court, to bring all that exonerating evidence. Police just took his word for it.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Insightful)
If the EMTs treated Zimmerman, then they would have put a dressing over any break in the skin to prevent infection. The back of his head does not even have a band aid on it. If he had a broken nose there would have been blood on his shirt and jacket and you would likely see nose plugs to stop the bleeding. There also would have been swelling. No evidence of this either.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm... "my fox tampa bay" and "bob owens"... two totally trustworthy news sites there. good job.
When NBC News played the audio of the 911 call George Zimmerman made prior to the confrontation that resulted in the death Travyon Martin, this is what they played:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.
That audio helped fan the nation-wide flames of hysteria over the supposed fact that the police had released an obvious racist who had tracked and killed Martin out of racist motives. Many Republicans, such as Jeb Bush, the highly regarded former governor of Florida, and many "conservatives," such as Rich Lowry, the editor of America's flagship "conservative" magazine, believed it.
But the audio played by NBC, though it seemed like "fact" (because it was an audio, and isn't audio true?) was false.
Here is the transcript of the actual audio of the 911 call:
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.
That is the slipshod hoodwinking professional reporting we need then?
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Fox did go to court to defend the right to lie in "news" stories. Take anything you read or hear from Fox with a *massive* grain of salt.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't even matter if he was beaten... he should be.. We don't have to recognize the authority of Neighbourhood Watch snitches. If they think there is an issue, they are to call the police. That's it. If they engage, WE have the right to self defense. They don't have police powers and if they attempt to bar my egress I won't hesitate to use as much force as necessary.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't there, so I have no real opinion on the whole thing other than to say, "I do hope they figure out what really happened so we can put it all to rest." There are important, unanswered questions about what happened and both theories seem entirely plausible to me.
I know many have already decided what happened, even if they don't actually know. But personally, I'm uncomfortable having any opinion until there's more credible, useful information. The police station's camera really doesn't tell us much (both sides are claiming it as evidence) and the eyewitness reports are... meh.
But this situation aside, the neighborhood watch thing is a minefield. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their neighborhood. Cops can't be everywhere, all the time, and they often encourage the neighborhood watch groups. But all that stops short of harassing innocent people or going looking for confrontations when there don't need to be any.
For anything outside your home that doesn't involve violence in progress, your weapon is your damn cellphone. Heading up the street to investigate some random pedestrian, armed, is (I think obviously) just dangerous and irresponsible.
But that doesn't mean this guy is a murderer, either. So we'll see.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't there, so I have no real opinion on the whole thing other than to say, "I do hope they figure out what really happened so we can put it all to rest." There are important, unanswered questions about what happened and both theories seem entirely plausible to me.
The 911 calls clearly show that Zimmerman pursued Martin after having been told not to, and Martin was found to have had no weapons of any kind on his person. Neither of those facts have been disputed by any version of events that I've heard. Where's the doubt and unanswered questions for you?
Quite honestly, it doesn't matter if Martin beat the crap out of Zimmerman before he was shot. Zimmerman was an armed man following him as he was trying to go about his daily business. In the same situation, I would have done the same. *that* is the self defense in this situation. If there was an altercation before Martin was shot, it was because Martin was trying to defend himself against Zimmerman. It's not relevant to the fact that Zimmerman followed him after having been told not to, and that as a direct result of that, Martin was killed. Whether it's manslaughter or premeditated may be in question, but there should be no doubt at all that Martin was murdered.
While I don't like turning this into a racial thing, the unfortunate reality is that if Martin was a 17-year old white girl, there wouldn't be any doubt whether Zimmerman was a murderer. Unfortunately, his victim was a 17-year old black boy. That, alone, is enough in the minds of some people to cast doubt on whether it was murder or self defense, and it makes me sick to my stomach. That kid did not have to die, and he is being denied justice by a police force that refuses to arrest and charge his killer.
Unfortunately, the racial tensions that are coming out of the woodwork over this one are exactly the reason that Martin was killed in the first place: in the US, the schism between Blacks and Whites was never resolved. It was put on the back burner and allowed to fester while on the surface people pretended it was done with. As long as there continues to exist a double standard, it can never be resolved properly.
The US is not alone in this... there's similar problems in other countries... look at how France is treating the Muslims (well, the US is doing it, too). Look at how "witches" are being treated in Africa and India. Look at how the first nations population is grossly over-represented in Canadian prisons. The world has a lot of problems. My only hope (aside from justice for Martin) is that it will open a dialogue and people will realise that the colour of your skin is not an indicator of what you will do with your life. Sadly, I think that realisation is generations away in parts of the US. (and yes, it took generations in other parts of the world, but we had a head start... in the British Empire, for example, slavery was officially abolished in 1833, but was largely gone already by 1797 and had been ruled in 1772 that Slavery was not legal in England itself, only the colonies... the beginnings of desegregation in England go back to a 1569 report, which declared that "England [was] too pure an air for a slave to breathe in". So we've had a bit of a head start.)
Re:In case you missed it (Score:4, Insightful)
If Zimmerman gets off on this it means in Florida you can murder anyone you want. You just have to follow them around and goad them into trying to defend themselves then shoot them dead. I don't see how this is anything but a hate crime.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:4, Informative)
If by "feeling threatened", you mean getting your skull bashed against a sidewalk, then yes, it means it OK to kill the person doing the bashing.
Actually it does not mean it is OK to kill the person doing the bashing. In California as well as Florida, if you START the confrontation you have no right to claim self defense.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the jury is still out on if that happened or not.
True. We won't know the truth until we have all the facts. There are many facts missing. The report from the paramedics, for example, has not been reported as far as I know.
So it's okay to shoot to death someone attacking you.
As a matter of fact, that is the one of the only times it is OK to shoot someone to death. The others would be if they had broken into your house or attacking a loved one.
But it is not okay to attack a lunatic carrying a gun that is chasing you?
Attacking a lunatic with a gun is the kind of thing that will get you shot.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Insightful)
Zimmerman instigated the entire thing by having ANY interaction with Trayvon. Had Zimmerman behaved as a neighborhood watch is supposed to behave - observed and called the cops, NO INTERACTION - this situation would not have happened, if the reports are to be believed.
I am on the NW in my area and we have had specific instructions not to engage AT ALL with anyone suspicious, for ANY reason, unless there is an IMMEDIATE threat posed by the suspicious person's actions. As in, do NOTHING but call the cops if we merely see the person breaking in or doing damage to property, but attempt to intervene if they are actively physically assaulting another human being. Also, there are several people on my NW group who have carry permits and they were EXPLICITLY told by police to NOT carry when they were doing NW rounds in order to reduce the risk of this exact kind of situation.
Zimmerman going armed and interacting with Trayvon while on NW skews the balance VERY strongly in favor of him trying to provoke something so he'd have a chance to use that gun. I don't find Zimmerman's account credible at all.
Had he simply called the cops and not interacted, as he was supposed to, as any responsible NW member has undoubtedly been told by police to do, this entire situation would not have happened.
Then again, maybe Florida is different. Maybe in Florida they tell guys who have zero law enforcement training and no official standing what-so-ever to feel free to attempt to detain potentially dangerous people who are simply walking down the street, and suggest having the capacity for lethal force while doing so. Maybe they're that fucking stupid down there.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a thug for not submitting to some self appointed vigilante's authority? You Americans and your circular logic.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:4, Insightful)
Zimmerman followed Martin with his truck, exited his vehicle, and proceeded to chase him. Yet you claim, with full confidence, that Martin started the confrontation?
Come on.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:4, Insightful)
he should have called 911 instead of starting an altercation.
He should have? You're full of the rights of Zimmerman to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases, however badly judged and however against the advice of the authorities.
But for Martin, you're saying what he should have done?
If you're a black kid in an area where cops have a reputation for racism, calling 911 is not the first option that comes to mind. Instead he rang his girlfriend to say there was someone following him. And the girlfriend advised him to run away. Which he did.
Rather than realising the kid was scared, Zimmerman seems to have taken this as as something else to be suspicious about.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Interesting)
Having seen the full video, I can come to only one conclusion: the video does not show any solid evidence of injuries because the quality is low. I saw some things that may have been injuries, but they could have just as easily been due to the shape of his head.
By the way, Sanford has put up the videos and 911 calls at http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html [sanfordfl.gov]
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting thing about the video is that the original source looks like it was recorded on videotape as interlaced NTSC! You can see this when there's a great deal of movement going on. Just look for areas of great contrast like the hood of the police car when it rolls in and you'll notice the odd saw-tooth appearance of the hood's edge. This happens in other places.
What this means is that a lot of what is being seen is what has been filled in by software as it deals with crappy NTSC. Noise, color fringing effects, are all smoothed out. Then lossy compression is used during the conversion to digital video and potentiall important detail is lost.
The result is that the video appears better than it really is.
This is what most people want when they're transferring analog video to digital. But here is it's absolutely essential that we see the raw, unaltered video, if for no other reason than for understanding the limits of equipment used. It possible the equipment just wasn't good enough to pick up the details we're looking for.
Re:In case you missed it (Score:5, Informative)
I saw the ABC video and thought it seemed weird too. The lower third graphic was REALLY high, and blocked Zimmerman's head at key moments.
Then I found the original video without the ABC lower third direct from the City of Sanford.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WWDNbQUgm4 [youtube.com]
There's nothing to see. If ABC is "hiding" something, well, I don't see it.
Maybe he is hurt. But you can't tell from this security camera footage. He might have cuts on his face or the back of his head. I can't tell. But I doubt his broken nose claim is true. Anything else... this video doesn't prove or disprove it.
Science or Pseudo-science? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Science or Pseudo-science? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not familiar with this particular piece of software, but I am however very familiar with the subject of forensic phonetics. The usual MO isn't like that of Hollywood, where the software does it all for you and simply gives you a percentage chance that it's X. (Judging from the website of Easy Voice Biometrics, however, it seems that that is what they're going for, which is an incredibly bad idea.) Usually the forensic phonetician will use software like Praat [praat.org] for working with the speech samples, but all conclusions will be his/her own.
Oh, and I really have a problem with the word Biometrics in the name of the software, because the human voice isn't very dependent on biometric factors --- it is extremely easy to manipulate. I can't imagine any program being capable of reliably identifying and eliminating voice disguises as they claim EVB does. (Source: Working on my MA thesis in forensic phonetics.)
Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but there are so many holes in his story that it's beyond belief. There is no question of who shot Trayvon, Zimmerman has admitted that. He's claiming self-defense, and his story doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. He should be (should have already been) arrested and charged, and let the legal system handle it, not the media and public outcry. If they don't have enough evidence, then the grand jury can refuse to indict. If they do, then he goes to trial or makes a plea.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly it. We know for a fact that he began from a position of safety (since he was on the phone w/ 911). Stand your ground does not mean charge into danger. We know the victim had no weapon. That makes the threat to life or grievous bodily harm seem unlikely. It really does seem like more than enough to justify deeper investigation, but instead the DA has already delivered a poor excuse for no charges which generally indicates there will be none..
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm undecided on wether Zimmerman is guilty or not without seeing further evidence myself. But it would be a stretch to call Trayvon "muscular". Kid weighed 140 pounds at 6' 3". I weigh that at 5' 7" and people think I'm too thin. He was a beanpole.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, at his age I was an inch shorter and 25 pounds heavier. I'm now 35 pounds heavier than this kid, and most people still consider me skinny at my height.
6'3" and 140# is rail-thin.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:4, Insightful)
Being in a motor vehicle while the other person is an unarmed pedestrian, on the other hand, is a very good way to be safe. Hint: Zimmerman was in a motor vehicle when he made his 911 call. He was safe. He chose to leave that safety, he chose to start a potentially violent confrontation, he lost any right to claim self defence.
I doubt he'd have gone and forced a confrontation like he did if he thought the other guy was carrying a gun.
If that happened, it happened after Zimmerman stalked him in his vehicle, in direct disobedience to the 911 operator who told him not to follow Martin; then he stopped, then he got out of his vehicle, then he initiated a confrontation with Martin.
Whatever happened, Zimmerman started it.
Whatever happened, Martin did not provoke it.
Whatever happened, it would not have happened if Zimmerman had not decided to make something happen.
If you start a fight unprovoked, and the fight ends with the person you attacked lying dead on the ground, you do not get to claim self defence. You get to defend yourself against a charge of premeditated murder. In a civilized country, that is.
So why the hell did he pick a fight, then? If he thought Martin was threatening, all he had to do is stay in his fucking vehicle and let the fucking police handle the situation. I'm pretty sure even a 6'3" muscular basketball player could not chase down a fucking vehicle.
And if I was stalked and then confronted by someone who could shoot me dead if I tried to run away, and I was bigger and stronger than them, I would try to beat them up.
One of the two people involved was "standing their ground", trying desperately to defend themselves against a violent criminal who was threatening them with deadly harm. And that person was not Zimmerman.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Zimmerman followed Trayvon despite being told not to, got out of his car, armed with a gun and started a confrontation, then shot Trayvon, that's not self-defense, and it's not covered under Florida's "Stand your ground" statute as far as I can tell. It needs to be put before a jury to determine if he's guilty, so he definitely needs to be arrested and charged and let the legal system work it out.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
So fucking what if he was in his motor vehicle? I don't have to cower in the safety of my motor vehicle, and he didn't either.
If he was exiting the vehicle to go home, pick up trash, or rescue a puppy and Martin attacked him, you'd have a point. There is no doubt that he exited the vehicle to confront Martin. There's no serious dispute about this particular fact.
The only reason the 911 operator asked if Zimmerman was following Martin was because he sounded OUT OF BREATH. He was not in his vehicle, he was pursuing on foot.
And she didn't tell him to stop pursuing. She said he didn't "need" to do that.
First of all, the dispatcher was a male. Have you actually listened to the tape? Second, your claim that the dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop pursuing because he sounded tired is patently absurd. Zimmerman's lawyers wouldn't even attempt to make that point in a trial because they'd worry that the jury feel that their intelligence is being insulted.
The dispatcher told him to stop pursuit because Zimmerman is not a law-enforcement officer. Again, there is no serious dispute about this fact.
And do you really think calling 911 is a reasonable option if your being chased by someone with a gun?
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Informative)
In any case, eyewtinesses said they saw Treyvon beating up Zimmerman.
You are making shit up. Not a single article mentioned any eyewitnesses. If there had been some who could testify to that, I'd be more prone to believe the self-defense theory.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Informative)
Being on the phone does not magically make one safe.
No, but being on the phone in a vehicle, someone who neither knows nor cares that you exist is not a threat.
Did Zimmernan at the time?
Yes, he was carrying a gun; what do you think he shot Trayvon with? He chose to leave the safety of his vehicle to pursue an unarmed teenager while carrying. He then provoked a confrontation by, you know, chasing down an unarmed kid. None of these facts are challenged by Zimmerman or the police. At this point, whether Trayvon threw the first punch isn't terribly important. He had every right to feel threatened if Zimmerman was pursuing him, especially if he noticed the gun, and to defend himself from that threat. You can't just provoke a fight and then invoke self-defense when the person defending themselves from you gets the upper hand.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Informative)
160 lbs of pure muscle is almost no muscle at all if you're 6'3. 160/6'3 is BMI 20, that's a few points short of sickly underweight.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there's a significant problem in the way this software is being used in this case. It is one thing to say that, based on samples of an individual's voice, that there is X probability that some other voice sample could be from the same person. However, there isn't any way the software can do the opposite and prove a negative. For example, you can take hours of recordings of my voice from phone conversations and train the software. Now, if I make my voice sound like Donald Duck, or if I sing in falsetto, which are two types of sounds that would not be in the sampling of my normal voice, what probability would the software return that the silly voice matches my normal voice? It would be very low, at is should be.
In this case we have a sample of someone's NOT NORMAL VOICE. They are screaming and yelling. What voice samples of Zimmerman's were used to train the software? Was it recordings of him screaming and yelling? If not then of course the software will return a low probability. Actually, I'm surprised it returned as high of a probability as it did.
Now, as a side note, I think the news is really trying to inflame this whole deal. I think Zimmerman is likely in the wrong here, however, the media is running rampant with speculation. A good example are the video clips of Zimmerman at the police station, and them (news media) saying it doesn't look like his nose is broken, or that there doesn't appear to be blood all over him. That sort of thing is completely impossible to determine from the crappy, low resolution security video. Again, yes, if there was that much blood and it could be seen in the video, then a positive could be "proven", but just because it doesn't show up in the video doesn't mean he has significant injuries or a broken nose, etc.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Interesting)
This reminds me of the infamous plane identification software. Its accuracy got up to 100%. They were so happy that they managed to do it. Put it out in the field and there were all sorts of false positives and false negatives. Turns out that the software got so good at guessing because with the test photos, all the good planes were shot against bright blue sky and the bad planes were shot against dark sky. The software made all its predictions based on the sky color.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Voice analysis is a well established and studied technique. Unless you're particularly practiced and adept at disguising your voice, there are certain characteristics introduced by the physics of your vocal cords, throat, mouth, and nasal passages that are pretty consistent and identifiable, even with most people doing "impersonations" that sound like some other person. So, yes, it's reasonable to rule out that it was Zimmerman, in fact, it's more reliable at excluding people than at matching them. As Mr Owen points out, this recording has low background noise levels, and it's got a notable amount of Zimmerman's speech recorded in addition to the screams for help, so there is no issue introduced by aging, colds, etc. It's a nearly ideal case for matching.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
'there are certain characteristics introduced by the physics of your vocal cords, throat, mouth, and nasal passages that are pretty consistent and identifiable'
Yeah, but you have no way of knowing this software uses those.
We actually come back to an RMS argument. This software is a black box. How do you know what it is measuring?
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see someone actually talking about the content of the article, instead of arguing about their conflicting certainties over fact.
But I disagree with your conclusions. Yes, theoretically you can do speaker identification. It is a very hard problem, however. In this case, we're talking about someone screaming in the distance in the background of a telephone call. Unless he did a lot of training with screamed samples, we should be skeptical of his results in conditions off his training set.
In particular, since there are really only two possible speakers, I'd at least wait until the same analysis is performed on the young man and the resulting match rate compared before jumping to conclusions. The fact that he didn't do that makes me think this is a guy with a company looking for some publicity, and not someone diligently trying to find the truth.
Re:Does This Tool Actually Work? (Score:4, Insightful)
d 2) are sufficiently unique that they can be used to reliably distinguish two individuals?
Short answer: No.
Long answer:
Consider this: There are any number of comedians that are capable of mimicking the vocal characteristics of famous people to the point that unless you are directly observing the person, you would have no way of saying that say, Bill Clinton, wasn't standing in front of you. Consider as well the wide dynamic range of the human voice -- From Opera to pop music singer, we have the ability to make a stunningly wide range of sounds; and reliably reproduce them. Now consider that this recording was taken of a telephone call. First, telephone calls are stripped of most frequencies to focus only on those used during normal conversation. Some women are nearly unintelligible on a phone without deepening their voice because their natural range falls outside what the phone will transmit. Now consider that this signal was further degraded because it was a cell phone: Which use very small and notoriously distortion-prone microphones to capture audio. Now I'll throw in my personal and subjective experience here; I've worked in a call center and have done QA on a number of calls as well as taken a number myself; I would say roughly 15% of women can be misidentified as men, and vice versa. That is how much of the signal is lost or distorted. When people can't even positively identify the gender of a caller to better than 85%, well... food for thought.
The idea of differentiating from two people with similar vocal characteristics over the phone is patently absurd. It may be sufficient to identify a person from, say, 30 other people that can be identified using, say, a security camera... but it is nowhere near as forensically sound as fingerprints. That is to say, by itself, it's worthless -- I wouldn't count on it to establish more than reasonable suspicion, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.
This is how it works. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Hmm, cell phone audio at 8kbps? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmm, cell phone audio at 8kbps? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cell phone audio is generally higher than 8kbps, even on GSM [wikipedia.org] where 12k-13kbps is typical. CDMA (including 3G networks) is as high or higher. That's plenty for very reliable voiceprint analysis. And in this case, they have all the samples of Zimmerman talking before the screaming encoded using the same method, making the comparison even easier.
Re:Hmm, cell phone audio at 8kbps? (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely agree. I've actually written audio segmentation code for an alarm system that first obtained audio, not straight from an ADC, but only after the audio had been compressed. Compression absolutely destroys important details.
I'm also skeptical of the software's ability to take calm, slow speech, and from that determine what a scream OUGHT to sound like. Comparing samples generated by a person speaking under similar conditions and looking for similarities isn't that hard. But the science of of voice analysis isn't yet to the point where we can take a sample of audio and from that build a virtual larynx, throat, mouth, and controlling nerve fibers so that we can extrapolate from that what a scream from that might sound like.
This test might have been legitimate had the software been used to compare the scream on the 911 recording with another scream from Zimmerman, but that's not what was done.
yawn: "trial by rumor" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yawn: "trial by rumor" (Score:5, Insightful)
If only the court system was being used.
What difference does it make? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree... I don't doubt that there was a physical confrontation that escalated into a shooting. There seems to be evidence to support that part of the story. The identity of the screamer is a bit of a moot point, considering that there wouldn't have been a confrontation in the first place if the over-zealous, paranoid, and armed Zimmerman had not pursued the kid and created the confrontation (against the instructions given to him by the 9-1-1 dispatcher).
I do wonder how this story would have turned out if Zimmerman had been the one killed in this. Would it have been dismissed as self-defense under the Stand Your Ground law (since Zimmerman was pursuing him in a way that could easily be perceived as threatening), or would he have been arrested at the scene? If he had been arrested, would there have been a public outcry? What if he had been released?
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, the question is who started the fight? I suspect Zimmerman started it, but the fact is we don't know since no one saw the start of the fight, and in the absence of proof, we have to assume the facts that favor the defendant (i.e. we have to assume Martin started the fight, it's the prosecution's burden to prove otherwise).
So if someone is trying to beat you to death, you feel you have a legal obligation to lie their and let them and hope they get tired of beating you before you die? The problem isn't the idea of self defenes, it's whether or not Zimmerman was actually defending himself. As I said, I suspect what really happened is he started a fight and then wanted to pull a gun when he realized he was losing. Which isn't legal self defense, even in Florida.
The problem is proving that, particularly when the police appear to have tanked the investigation.
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:5, Insightful)
A 911 dispatcher is NOT a cop and has NO authority. Being told to leave the kid alone by the 911 operator means nothing in any legal sense.
Nobody is saying the 911 dispatcher has any legal authority. It was advice. Good advice. If he had followed that advice and stayed where he was we mightn't be in this mess now. At the very least there wouldn't be the public opinion that he put himself in a position where using his gun might be considered even remotely necessary.
Just because "you're not the boss of me" doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to the person offering the advice.
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a fucking idiot.
You're walking down the street. There's a guy following you in a SUV. You keep walking, he keeps following. Then he gets out of the car and comes towards you.
I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty freaked out. Definitely enough to be very prepared for a physical confrontation, even though I didn't have any weapons and was just minding my own business. It doesn't matter if Trayvon beat the hell out of Zimmerman - frankly, he should've, he was being assaulted (the threat of violence). But instead Zimmerman shoots him.
If I go into a bar, threaten a guy until he has to respond by force, am I justified in shooting him?
Keep in mind, there's not even any substantial evidence that Travyon did actually respond to the threat with force.
Is this Richard Jewel again? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Think what you will (Score:4, Insightful)
There's so many opinions flying around here about this, yet I honestly can't pass judgment on any of this information.
All I do know is that the existing evidence is more than sufficient to merit formal charges and an arrest warrant.
If the DA has not put in for a warrant for Zimmerman as a suspect for murder by end of business on Monday, then I think the DOJ should pursue a more vigorous investigation into racism and misconduct within the DA's office and the Police Department.
Frankly, Zimmerman's story has stunk from the get go, the actions of the police have stunk and the more information comes out, the more the entire thing stinks. If we don't see the DA take swift and immediate action on Monday, we'll know where their motives truly lie.
Re:Think what you will (Score:4, Insightful)
Hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:April Fools (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [state.fl.us], 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. ]
It's not a question of innocence (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's not a question of innocence (Score:5, Insightful)
Any healthy human can kill with their bare hands. You don't need martial art training. You just need enough anger to dehumanize your target and start beating the shit out of him.
Unfortunately with every blow, you dehumanize yourself in the eyes of your victim, making it that much more likely that they'll respond to your force.
Our legal system is set up that police can only hold you for 48 hours before they either release you or charge you with a crime. The case has to be solid, as in will 12 people who were unable to get out of jury duty, believe in the prosecutors' version of events or else the defendant will go free. If the defendant gets a not-guilty verdict, he is protected by double jeopardy, which prevents the government from taking him back to court on the same charges.
So by demanding "Justice for Trayvon now, only skittles and iced tea", they are preventing investigators from making a solid case against Zimmerman. They are tainting the jury pool so much that they'll have to ship Amish people from Pennsylvania and Ohio to serve on the jury.
Will that give Trayvon any justice? Is this really about justice at all? Zimmerman is going to be looking over his shoulders for the rest of his life whether he gets charged or not. He has been convicted in the court of liberal public opinion.
Re:It's not a question of innocence (Score:4, Informative)
Well cynical dicks that have contempt for jury duty don't typically get selected. Both juries I've been on (a DUI and a murder) were full of reasonably intelligent and rational people who took the case and their responsibilities as citizens very seriously. It was actually pretty reassuring.
Re:It's not a question of innocence (Score:5, Insightful)
as reported by zimmerman.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The presumption of innocence under U.S. law is pretty limited. All it means is that the prosecution has the burden of proof in order to convict you.
For example, if you can't pay bail, there's no presumption of innocence. The judge can keep you in jail even though you've never been convicted of anything.
The issue here is that the cops weren't seriously investigating Zimmerman, and that they've failed to prosecute people in the past who killed black victims.
It didn't look like Zimmerman and his accusers would ever have their day in court -- until they went to the media. That's an appropriate role of the media.
BTW there's nothing about "presumption of innocence in the Constitution.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The revelation that pounding the human head against concrete can kill is fairly noteworthy . . . . and news to you?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [go.com] showing the eye witness I'm referring to:
And here is another report [telegraph.co.uk], which seems consistent with the above, and seems to be someone different:
And of course Zimmerman was treated on the scene [legalinsurrection.com] 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?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [msn.com]
Do you have a link for me?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/30/trayvon-martin-lawyers-evidence-leaks-zimmerman [guardian.co.uk]
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/neighbor-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense/ [cnn.com]
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
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [nydailynews.com]
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete...
But apparently Zimmerman was not injured [time.com] as he claims. Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [youtube.com] and decide for yourself if this dude looks like hes just had his head smashed and beaten into pavement.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, apparently Zimmerman's arrest in 2005 was specifically for resisting arrest (and assaulting a police officer, but that probably came after the police officer started arresting him for resisting arrest). That was during a domestic crisis situation.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Funny)
I think I'm going to need a chart for this. :)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
They were talkative enough about not being able to charge him due to stand your ground. That is, exactly the sort of thing a DA wouldn't say if they intended to even look into the matter.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
So according to you, there is a law that states that you are only allowed to defend yourself if your injuries warrant being taken to the ER? I would love to see a link for that! The fact that he has ANY injury means that his story adds up.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's because Zimmerman's father is a former judge.
That's a fact.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Please note that I am prefacing these statements with 'if' since we do not know for certain. I am merely presenting a case where SYG could legitimately be used and argued for)
That's precisely the point - we don't know for certain. Evidence is seemingly contradictory, and witnesses are claiming different things. At this point, a proper trial is needed to decide on the facts of the case, and Zimmerman can then claim SYG as an affirmative defense during that trial and walk free, if the facts do indeed support his case.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Where is it documented that Martin was a well-built athlete? He was certainly taller than Zimmerman, but the police video seems to show that Zimmerman was in pretty good shape. He also had a work history as a bouncer at house parties (a job from which he was fired for being too aggressive).
Re:Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Hans Reiser, Foxconn, and now Zimmerman (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see many people here arguing that Zimmerman should be convicted. What I see is many people (myself included) arguing that the facts presented so far are clearly very murky, and that the guy should be arrested until a proper trial can be held to determine his guilt or innocence. If he's smart, too, he'll ask to waive jury trial, that way he's much more likely to get an impartial ruling under the circumstances.
Innocent until proven guilty, but not inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
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?