Trayvon Martin - Are There Any Media People In New York City?

There is a conference on voice biometrics in New York city April 3-4.  Will any media be there?

Jeralyn Merritt, the Talk Left defense attorney, oftens finds herself in odd positions during the media meltdowns involving politically fashionable defendants.  While Dirty Harry conservatives are normally the ones who want to trample avoid being overly solicitous of defendant's rights sometimes (Duke Lacrosse, Kobe Bryant) roles shift.  In any case, if I were in a jam I would hire her in a second; we could talk politics later.

Today she has a post that is supportive of facts and the law, but not so much for the pro-Martin crowd. She highlights a conference on Voice Biometrics opening in New York City on April 3-4, wonders whether anyone's media budget can afford the $699 registration fee, and looks at the legal standards for admissibilty of the 911 Scream evidence in a Trayvon Martin killing.

Ms. Merritt also expresses some skepticism about the Orlando Sentinel 'Scream' piece with the two self-refuting voice experts.  I will say, read it all.

SEND IN THE EXPERTS:

Let me aggregate the links I have found to various firms that provide expert witness services in audio forensics, as well as excerpts of the discussion they offer on its limitations.  Do keep in mind that the Orlando Sentinel had available as evidence (a) the background screams on the gunshot 911 call; (b) George Zimmerman's 911 call (spoken voice); and (c) nothing at all for Trayvon Martin; down the road, that may change, just as Martin's voice surely changed with the years.

We can start with Tom Owen, the lead expert in the Orlando Sentinel piece.

The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.

There are those times when a voice sample must be obtained without the knowledge of the suspect. It is possible to make an identification from a surreptitious recording but the amount of speech necessary to do the comparison is usually much greater. If the suspect is being engaged in conversation for the purpose of obtaining a voice sample, the conversation must be manipulated in such a way so as to have the suspect repeat as many of the words and phrases found in the text of the unknown recording as possible.

The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.

Yet he claimed to be able to get a meaningful test of screams to speech to the Orlando Sentinel.  Ms. Merritt notes his financial stake in this - he just rolled out his new voice matching software to police departments everywhere.  Normally the media loves this sort of conflict of interest story - time will tell.

The second Orlando Sentinel expert was Mr. Primeau, who was quoted as follows:

"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."

Yet he admits to never having heard a tape of Martin's voice.  For all he or I know, Martin would bring down the house on Saturday night doing his impression of Barry White, yet he is sure that voice is Martin.  Extraordinary.  Not admissible, but extraordinary.  Let's go to his website:

4. When conducting voice identification, it is important to create an exemplar of the accused for audio comparison using as exact conditions and equipment as close as possible to the measurements taken from the evidence as outlined above. The speech must be the same as the speech on the evidence in order for the testing to be accurate. As an audio forensic expert, I often have to coach the accused into the same energetic voice tone and inflection as the evidence recording. However, it is still possible to compare speech if the exemplar is not as close to the evidence as I would like.

So far it seems as if the defense counsel for Zimmerman could hire either of these guys to disqualify their own story to the Orlando Sentinel.

Another expert - Stutchman Forensic Laboratory, Advocate for Evidence Since 1992:

Collection of Exemplar

It is recommended that the exemplar of the known voice must be collected in as close to the same manor as the recording of the unknown voice was recorded. For example, if the recording of the unknown voice was recorded over the phone, the exemplar of the known voice should be collected over the phone, etc. When the exemplar is collected, the suspect is asked by the examiner to stay the same words in the same way as they were spoken by the unknown person. In other words, in a normal, natural voice.

No screaming.

Here is Forensic Science Services describing the techniques as they are applied in Canada:

Voice Identification

The spectrographic voice identification analysis has two steps. The sound of speech is first transformed into a three dimensional (time - frequency - volume) graphic pictures which do reveal numerous acoustical features of an individual’s voice. The second step involves the pattern comparison of the same phrases/sentences from the unknown sample and the suspect’s sample. The results of analysis are expressed as:

•  
  • Probably the same speaker (high level of confidence).
  • Possibly the same speaker (intermediate level of confidence).
  • Inconclusive (due to the insufficient number of comparison words, poor quality of recordings, too high variability of the voice, possible disguise).
  • Possibly not same speaker (intermediate level of confidence).
  • Probably not the same speaker (high level of confidence).

The results depend on quality of recordings, the total number of comparison words, speakers’ condition, and individual speakers’ voice variability. There is a requirement for a minimum number of 20 comparison words in a ‘connected speech’. The suspect should provide the comparison sample by reading three times the transcript of the unknown voice sample.

No screaming.

That is four experts, all on the same side of the issue.  And (trust me or not!) I am not cherry-picking here - finding more firms that describe their methods and requirements at their website should be possible, but I hoovered up everyone I could find (hence, Canada).  We welcome more experts!

Now, Jacob Sullum wondered whether an aggressive prosecutor could, in order to establish probable cause or secure an indictment, use evidence he knew/suspected would not be admissible in court.  IANAL, but extensive review of Law & Order as well as comments from people who *are* lawyers reminds me that an ethical prosecutor won't use evidence he knows can't be used at trial. 

What the sanctions are, and what constitutes "knowledge of inadmissibility" in the case of this sort of audio evidence I do not know.  For example, would an indictment that relied on audio evidence later found to be inadmissible be dismissed?  Would the prosecutor be sanctioned if he could not convince a judge it was a good faith mistake?  I don't know.

But my *GUESS* is that neither Federal nor State prosecutors will be able to find credible experts to green light this evidence.  So no audio ex machina for the prosecution.

UPDATE:  CNN talks to some experts, including Mr. Stutchman, linked above:

And standards set by the American Board of Recorded Evidence indicate "there must be at least 10 comparable words between two voice samples to reach a minimal decision criteria." While Zimmerman says more than that many words on his 911 call, the only one heard on the second is a cry for "help."

But that board's current chairman Gregg Stutchman -- who described Owens as a friend and well-respected in their field -- said that exact metric doesn't necessarily apply to the software Owens used.

David Faigman, a professor of law at the University of California-Hastings and an expert on the admissibility of scientific evidence, said courts and the overall scientific community have mixed opinions about the reliability of such "voiceprint" analysis.

Because one goal in the Martin case might be ruling out Zimmerman as the source of the screams, rather than precisely identifying who actually was yelling, it could lower the bar for getting such evidence into court, he said.

"I have no audio anywhere of Zimmerman screaming but I am certain that couldn't be Zimmerman".  Really?  That seems roughly as dubious as saying it is Zimmerman.  Well, they will have to show the science, and I bet they can't.

Still, he said, it wouldn't be too hard for Zimmerman's attorneys to find an audio expert to offer an opposing opinion.

"These expert witnesses come out of the woodwork when money is concerned," he said.

Hmm - right now the only guy with an obvious financial stake is Tom Owen.  Too bad CNN missed that.  Kidding - it's a good thing CNN missed that or they would have dropped that quote.  Here is CNN failing to follow the money:

He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics like pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices....

Yeah, software he is now selling at $4,995 a pop.

A bit more from Mr. Stutchman:

Stutchman acknowledged there are some "quacks" who pass themselves off as experts, but insisted that certified audio practitioners like Owens can be effective. In fact, he said such experts could analyze if the screaming voice on the 911 call is that of Martin -- assuming they can get a sample of him speaking, perhaps from a voice mail message.

And after they get a no-match, citing technical limitations, cell phone compression, or the sorts of obstacles described at Mr. Stutchman's website, where does the court go?  The screaming is neither Zimmerman nor Martin, so let's start looking for a third mystery witness?

Back to Mr. Owen:

Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.

"Unlikely?"  What happened to "reasonabe scientific certainty" in the Orlando Sentinel?

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.

Huh?  The poor match means due to some combination of circumstances, such as poor or compressed audio and badly matched voice samples, and reality, such as "It wasn't Zimmerman", he can't claim a positive match.  To then say that all the uncertainty is resolved by concluding it is not Zimmerman and giving the technical side a pass is absurd.  As to 60% versus 90%, what is the science behind that?

My *GUESS* is that he is saying that in his professional experience, the bad audio quality, small sample and "Screams versus speech" problem should have knocked a perfect match down to, hmm, 90%, if in fact it was Zimmerman screaming.  Or 60%.  Either way, higher than 48%, so it must not be Zimmerman.  Keep in mind that with two different tapes of Richard Nixon he got an 86% match, thereby proving with reasonable scientific certainty that there was a New Nixon.

In any case, we are not talking about how good a sample must be to provide a positive match, i.e., ruling someone in.  We are talking about how bad a sample can be and still provide a negative match, i.e., exclude someone.

In theory that is not un-doable - Mr. Owen could get audio of himself and a few neighbors screaming "Help" in pain and fear, get spoken audio from everyone, and see what sorts of matches he gets.  If he consistenty gets a 70% match from the Known Screamer and 40% matches from the wrong screamers, he has the foundation for a good journal article.  But if that article hasn't already been written, let's not expect a judge to allow this.

MAINTAINING STANDARDS:  Ms. Merritt explains the 'Daubert' standard for the admissibility of technical evidence in Federal courts.  We have been advised by Sue that... well, here it is:

I just looked it up, Florida is one of the states that uses Frye not Daubert. Either way, this guy probably wouldn't pass as an expert.

This Hahvahd mahn says Florida is a Frye state for purposes of a state trial. Would that apply to federal charges brought in Florida?  I can't afford the lawyers to sort this out, but one presumes a uniformity of Federal standards, which means Daubert would be it for the Feds.

LOOKING FOR LONGSHOTS:  Any chance Trayvon Martin sang in a church or school choir (being a choirboy and all)?  If he was a bass, or a soprano, that might be contemporary and objective evidence of his voice timbre.  Well, rather than an audio from a few years ago, for example.  That is an easy question for his family to answer, althogh I doubt Ben Crump will think it serves the family's interests to stand in front of a mike and tell us that Trayvon Martin was a basso profundo.

I DEPLORE HER PESSIMISTIC CONCLUSION:  Ms. Merritt on the upcoming expert conference:

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

Tweeting?  I won't to see interviews on the mean streets of the greatest city in the world.  LIVE! I know what I smell, but these newsies ought to smell a story.

YEAH, YEAH:  Obviously, if an audio expert opined that his enhancement of a cryptic audio confirmed that Iran was going nuclear we would see plenty of lefties doubting his technology and techniques. But today they are in a "Trust The Expert" mode. Today. And who among us has a problem with faith-based communities?

Comments

[Jack is Back!]

First, in watching this beautiful rainbow-colored sweater of fact come unraveled one long thread at a time. Looks like it is time for another diversion. Is there an aspirin factory in Nort Korea?

[BR]

Yes, Jack, it's like a carnival hypnotist waving the mirror in front of the American people, fixate and ... ? What do you think is the purpose?

Just before 9/11, the press fixation was on Chandra Levy.

[BR]

Much more interesting, Syria and Iran.

[Jabba The Tutt]

Thanks for the fabulous coverage of this case.

[myiq2xu]

Frye:

http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/little/topic8.pdf

[myiq2xu]

Just before 9/11, the press fixation was on Chandra Levy.

It turned out Gary Condit didn't kill Chandra. He was schtupping her though.

[cboldt]

Tom Owen is probably qualified, as a person, but his testimony is inadmissible under FRE 703 because, by the expert's own admission, the conclusion lacks sufficient fact evidence for support.

He's shooting in the dark - how can he say he hit the target, let alone WHERE he hit it?

[Clarice]

I like this "the exemplar of the known voice must be collected in as close to the same manor as the recording of the unknown voice "

Hard to find even one manor in this place.

Remember, the prosecutor said no go. The state has appointed Ms Corey to look at the matter. Do you suppose she'll stick her neck out and say even if the evidence is inadmissible go ahead and use it to establish probable cause for an arrest?

[cboldt]

The entire purpose of the Tom Owen introduction and production lies in the extra-legal realm of public opinion. The objective is to gin up public outrage against Zimmerman - to incite the mob.

There is no need for an expert - eyewitnesses and common sense attribute the screaming to the guy taking a beating; not to the guy administering it.

[Johnv2]

What if it is Martin screaming in the background? It seems there was a struggle for the gun (the semi-auto did not cycle and eject the fired casing), I can easily imagine either (or both!) men screaming during the final seconds before the shot was fired.

[cboldt]

I'll be surprised if Corey bills the case. She's smart enough to dismiss this audio smoke screen, out of hand.

Hard to read her "tough on crime" stance, but assuming she's street smart (she ought to be), she may well be inclined to conclude that Trayvon is the one who needs a slap upside the head.

[Jane]

The evidence doesn't matter. Zimmerman was last week's sacrificial lamb for the narrative Obama. A new one is developing as I write this. Demonizing the court may not do it.

I'm watching Sarah on the Today Show. It's clear why they call it the lamestream media.

[cboldt]

Yeah, Martin is about to get shot, so he yells "Help Help" for 20 seconds before the shot is fired. Nonsense on stilts.

[Jack is Back!]

Jane,

Watching Palin sitting on that bistro chair with the other 3 including that quack Snyderman (remember her predictions before the first gulf war started for real?) makes me wonder why she agreed to do this? Is that what they want - her opinion on Scarlett Johansen's PG photo? Plus the chick of color at the other end looks like she was handed a turd to pick up. It is obvious to me that she is in a very hostile environment and I can no longer watch. This is not going to turn out well for her.

[Specter]

I know specifically of a case here in CT where a prosecutor gave inadmissible "evidence" to a police department for them to use in an arrest warrant affidavit for the purpose of generating probable cause. The "evidence" came from one case against a defendant and was used to arrest him in a second alleged incident. So - it does happen.

[Rick Ballard]

My hope is that Corey releases the reasoning for her decision to not attempt prosecution in great detail and only in writing. She should include the relevant Florida statutes and all the relevant facts leading to the decision. It won't stop the race baiters but I don't believe that anything will anyway.

[cboldt]

-- My hope is that Corey releases the reasoning for her decision to not attempt prosecution in great detail and only in writing. --

Redact and release the evidence too. Photos of Zimmerman after he took the beating; witness statements; condition of the firearm (empty casing in the pipe - magazine full) and correlation of that with a struggle; Zimmerman's complete statement.

Specific refutation of certain myths would be nice, as Wolfinger denied meeting with Lee or anybody in the Sanford PD; address the Serino affidavit (provide it, if it exists).

She could chastise the media, but not take any questions.

[NK]

I still don't know for a fact what happened that rainy february night-- we may never know for a fact. But I do know-- when this is over and 'Bam loses, and Crump gets no PI business from his carnival act, the real losers will be the Legacy Media.. this will be another 'exploding pick-up' deal, with the media exposed as bogus fable tellers. Legacy new edia revenue will go through the floor. A silver lining!

[Jack is Back!]

So far, from what I can tell, Corey has not played politics with her position. In fact, she has taken on a very emotionally charged case with Christian Fernandez. She could have gone complete Juvvie and no one would have batted an eyelash but she didn't and now it is controversial. She is on the proverbial hot seat but is not backing down and trying to find a 3rd way of charging him as an adult but with a smaller time to serve. Tough situation but she is hanging in there.

I do not think she will pull a Fitzgerald and surprise everyone with a trumped up minor charge to keep the political heat off of her.

[narciso]

Our experience with the local DA, a Reno protege, makes us just a tad cynical, JiB,
sh goes after the low hanging fruit, and
leaves the big boys alone,

They have not allowed any real discussion of
the Zimmerman case, as of yet, then again Fox is not particularly better, except for Fox
Business, and they shuttered those shows.

[Appalled]

TM:

Nice job on keeping track of all the initial and ongoing media distortions of this case. What is it about today's reporter that, when they see any case involving race, they think it's 1963, and Bull Connor is about to break out the hoses?

[Jack is Back!]

narciso,

Ah, South Florida:) Ain't North Florida. This is "cracker" country and the only thing that may make Corey go all political is the optics. I think she says "not enough to inict or convict" and leaves it for the Feds and the civil iitigation.

Note, she has gone radio silent. Now when have you ever heard of any elected official (she is elected not appointed) decide not to use the media for her own purposes in highly charged judicial environment?

But everything here is a guess and my guess is as good as yours or hers or his>

[narciso]

You live in Atlanta, and you still haven't figured it out, then again you fell for all the media tropes, and are still considering
voting for Obama,

[Cecil Turner]

I rather doubt the audio experts are going to be pivotal in any legal action. The main thrust of that "evidence" is to bolster the narrative, and to counter the emerging "up and coming thug received his comeuppance" meme. But even allowing a journalistic standard vice a legal one, this is hard to credit.

Listening to the audio tape of the cries for help, it's got some really obvious problems for analysis. Mainly, the witness and 911 operator are talking over the screams in the background pretty continuously. Even neglecting the audio issues and tone differences because of the screaming, unless those voices are filtered out, it'd be useless. (And while the software may be capable of doing that, there was nothing about it on the youtube examples, where AFAICT they merely checked audio files.) And if that's filtered out, I can't see how the remainder could possibly give the "five seconds of good audio" the EVB program supposedly requires. Unless Mr Owen can provide a reasonable explanation of how he prepared the audio for comparison, I'd have to reject the whole thing as hopelessly unscientific.

[narciso]

Well she is a White Hispanic who speaks the Spanish she picked up at Cambridge, as compared to Corey who is a professional, We
probably haven't had one, since Dardis, in the 70s, I think

[Jack is Back!]

I'll bet a lot of these so called reporters were not even born prior to 1963. It could be possible that their parents weren't born before 1963. No, if they harbor that image of Bull and his hoses it is because Bill Ayers has been doing what he set out to do in revolutionizing the civis and politics being taught in American universities to aspiring journalists. When you have a lie you need to make sure it gets wide attention for it to be believable.

[cboldt]

-- I think she says "not enough to inict or convict" and leaves it for the Feds and the civil iitigation. --

If there isn't enough to charge him, then he probably has immunity. Crump can sue, but there would be a motion to dismiss on statutory immunity from criminal and civil prosecution on a finding of justified use of deadly force in self-defense. If the force isn't justified, then the state has a manslaughter case. IOW, Corey is going to have to find justified or not, and that finding drives subsequent legal action against Zimmerman.

I think the feds need an underlying state crime to hook "hate crime" onto. Assuming arguendo that Zimmerman is racist, he can badmouth all he wants, just like the NBP can publicly utter "kill all whitey babies" in front a a voting place, without any risk of criminal prosecution. It's legal to be a bigot. See Sharpton, Crump, Holder, Obama and others.

[Walter Sobchak]

"It is recommended that the exemplar of the known voice must be collected in as close to the same manor as the recording of the unknown voice"

In other words in only works on the estates of English nobility.

[jimmyk]

What is it about today's reporter that, when they see any case involving race, they think it's 1963, and Bull Connor is about to break out the hoses?

I'm sure it's not that the typical reporter is a partisan left-wing Democrat. /sarc

Add to that the fact that they are in the entertainment (as opposed to information) business, and this is what you get. If GZ had been black, or TM white (or both), this would have been a p. 7 item in the local paper.

[narciso]

The point of the Owen's story was to build 'the narrative' as with 'Julianne's Bender'
mislabeled as 'Game Change'

[Threadkiller]

During Trayvon's 3 day stay at Miracle Max's morgue, he was given a potion of skittles and iced tea. It is a recording of him saying "to blave" that the experts are using.

[cboldt]

-- when have you ever heard of any elected official (she is elected not appointed) decide not to use the media for her own purposes in highly charged judicial environment? --

She's got a longer term view, and no motive to say anything in advance of announcing her conclusion.

As for the politics, the liberals hate her guts already, yes? It's not like they'd vote for her just because she saw fit to charge an innocent person to satisfy the mob.

[narciso]

It doesn't matter that it admitted or not,

[PaulV]

Was Martin screaming from the pain in his hand from hitting Z? Who is more likely to scream, the guy with a broken nose and injuries to back of head or the one with none?

[narciso]

Meanwhile, having Sallie Kohn on Fox, is a concession that Van Jones and (Mark Lloyd)
won a round,

[Rick Ballard]

cboldt,

I'd also like to see a redacted version of the ME's report with the wound trajectory illustrated and notes as to burns or powder residue. That would eliminate some of the babble concerning the fatal moment.

[cboldt]

-- I'd also like to see a redacted version of the ME's report with the wound trajectory illustrated and notes as to burns or powder residue. --

Absolutely. ALL of the evidence. It will speak for itself. Corey can briefly recite why that evidence does not produce probable cause to conclude the use of deadly force was unjustified; and then explain, again, how the self-defense law works.

[Chubby]

((the guy with a broken nose and injuries to back of head or the one with none?))

assuming that neighborhood watch captains are schooled in self defense techniques, one of which is to scream loudly, is also something to consider

[PaulL]

Gary Condit was always identified on the TV screen as Rep. Gary Condit, and all smart people know that Rep. is an abbreviation for Republican. I don't recall a single time that he was identified as a Democrat.

[Appalled]

narciso:

I assume you are positing a "Journolist" conspiracy. My guess is more that reporters on race cases have a preset template in their heads that they cannot get out of their heads. The national reporters really flop about whne they get out of DC, and try to report on exotic systems outside their experience.

As fot your live in Atlanta comment -- I'm well aware of the race baiting that goes on, usually when a beloved local pol is about to get the boot because of ATL gntrification. But, when it comes to criminal cases, the only one I can remember being demagogued was the Child Murders case -- and that was done by people who DON'T live here.

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 17 at Raz today.

Trails Romney by 1.

[Sue]

Oh my. If I had known Tom would quote me, I would have been a little less pithy with my comment. Let me just go on record here...I would not be able to pass Frye or Daubert so don't call me as a witness.

[narciso]

They have lied at every significant step of this process, the 9/11 call, the time span
when those calls began, the photo lineup,

[Thomas Collins]

JiB and narciso, I haven't noticed any reports of leaks from Corey's team. Is there anything in the Florida papers that I might have missed? I have been impressed that, as far as I can tell, she has not only imposed an info embargo on her investigation, but also has stuck to it.

[bgates]

I assume you are positing a "Journolist" conspiracy. My guess is more that reporters on race cases have a preset template in their heads

I didn't think the Journolisters ever said to themselves, "let's all get together to hide the truth". They all had The Truth, in template form (courtesy of their high-class, Ayers-inspired education, as JiB says), and discussed how to best handle facts in light of it.

[Jack is Back!]

TC,

The only latest is that Crump and the Martin family are pressing Federal DOJ to pursue the Seminole County DA Norm Wolfinger for possible interference for not bringing charges. Link

Its all white noise now until the forensics are made known. Just a whole bunch of speculation and dumd ass comments on various local media blogs. Go to the local Sanford Herald website and see what I mean.

[Jane]

It is obvious to me that she is in a very hostile environment and I can no longer watch.

JIB,

It sounds like you and I turned it off at the same second. I thought she was supposed to be a host, not a panelist. I wonder if she expected that.

[matt]

It is a longing for the Left's romances of the past; the days of MLK and Che and JFK and Jackie. When being a Democrat was the right thing for all right thinking people to be.

It goes back to the days of GB Shaw and the Fabians and the Spanish Civil War and La Pasionara and Duranty.

Except JFK almost nuk'ed Castro and Che and Khrushchev and the tanks rolled in in Budapest and Prague and Kabul and reality got in the way of the romance.

And then came free love and turn on, tune in , drop out and the days of rage and burn baby burn and Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

It is the passion of rebellion and the id and collective living off of other people's free stuff and no responsibility. meh!

[jimmyk]

True, Matt, there were so many instances during the OWS nonsense where reporters got teary-eyed over how it reminded them of the 1960s. Blech!

[Threadkiller]

The only time the Journolisters don't conspire, or default to template mad-lib reporting, is when Obama's eligibility is in question.

When that topic is raised, the media is both honest and reliable.

[jwest]

It sounds like you and I turned it off at the same second. I thought she was supposed to be a host, not a panelist. I wonder if she expected that.
Posted by: Jane | April 03, 2012 at 09:53 AM

Actually, she handled it quite well. Palin got in a few shots on the “lamestream media” and, when contrasted with Ann Curry in a later segment, she was much more likeable and pleasant.

[OldTimer]

After the Oprah question, which was stupid and silly, I switched off the channel. My TV selector hasn't been turned that low in over 15 years.

Sorry Sarah, but the supercilious dolts sitting next to you are not ever going to be won over. Their mission is to destroy not just you, but people like me who agree with your philosophy of life. I refuse to give them the ratings.

[Danube of Thought]

I think, but don't know, that evidence known to be inadmissible at trial is not infrequently used in support of probable cause determinations. Hearsay comes to mind.

In California, hearsay evidence is routinely admitted in preliminary hearings, which are held (if there has been no grand jury) for the purpose of determining whether a case should proceed to trial.

I believe that a prosecutor has behaved unethically only when he believes he does not have sufficient admissible evidence to convict, but still files criminal charges. That's a bit different from saying he's prohibited from taking inadmissible evidence--e.g., a failed polygraph--into account.

[rse]

Probably reminds them of the 60s as a meme because elements date back to the 60s. In the 60s and the Great Society, feds thought they could adopt a mandate and get the desired results. Then we paid for policy analysis on why those mandates could create dysfunction but not the desired form.

Took the results and tried again under Clinton. Partial implementation and more dysfunction but still not the desired transformation.

This time it's been broken apart, renamed, partnered with private sector and state and locals using the federal purse to mandate the desired results, and all bo needs is a 2nd term and we are toast. Everything fundamental to who we are as individuals and country has been targeted.

Carefully and methodically. Official Sites I monitor because I am aware of the implications of their policies are evolving in their prescriptions in real time. Almost on a daily basis.

If he loses, it will require a comprehensive understanding to undo at the bureaucratic level.

I wrote something long on the big speech this morning before an article sent me off on a tangent for a few hours. I feel even more strongly now about what I said than when I wrote it.

This is evil stuff.

[Janet]

When being a Democrat was the right thing for all right thinking people to be.

That describes most of my neighbors. They just ARE Democrats. They tend to live conservative lives though. They don't give their money away to even things out. They drive cars...even owning lots of cars. They dabble in environmentalism...maybe a compost bin....but have lawn services.

Being a cool, progressive Democrat is easy. Problems are caused by some phantom society...& problems are solved by forcing others to obey their ideas - "they should". The problem causing society is never them & the "they should" doesn't include them. What's not to like.

[jimmyk]

when contrasted with Ann Curry in a later segment, she was much more likeable and pleasant.

A low bar, to be sure.

[Tom Maguire]

If I my semi-hijack this thread, I have an idea that will probably turn in to a post tomorrow.

The notion - critics are screaming for a new investigation because the original one lacked vigor and commitment.

Critics are also suspicious that the DA rejected the lead investigators request on the night of the shooting to arrest GZ.

Well - if this was a coverup, rather than a simple dispute about sufficient grounds for probable cause, what would have happened to the lead investigator next?

(a) he is take off the case and reassigned to traffic duty;

(b) he is left in charge but with obstacles, such as o support for warrants;

(c) he is told that if he brings the facts the DA will bring the case.

We don't know what he is told that night. But weeks and leaks later, he is *not* complaining about his stint manning a speed trap, and he is not complaining that no one would authorize a warrant for anything. He is just complaining.

Proves nothing, but please - send better leaks. If the guy who didn't like GZ's story had a free hand to investigate and came up with nothing, maybe it is because there is nothing there.

The sum of his leaks add up to "skeptical investigator can't make case", not "cover-up".

Back on this audio topic, either that Orlando Sentinel story is going to join the ABC News video boots up in the graveyard, or I am. No prisoners!

Which could make for a repetitive week here. How many ways can we recycle the same basic points? Let's see!

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Bingo, Janet. Voting Dem today gives them a free pass in the conscience department. It says like nothing else "I mean well" to their similarly minded friends.

[narciso]

This is what passes for context in my neck of the woods;

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/30/2723557/trayvon-martins-shooting-death.html

[cboldt]

-- Critics are also suspicious that the DA rejected the lead investigators request on the night of the shooting to arrest GZ. --

Free the Serino affidavit! (if there is one)

Early news reports have Serino in agreement with Zimmerman, and the crux of the (fake) news about his difference, is that if you read between the lines (in other words, make stuff up), Zimmerman profiled Martin.

We do have a witness named John. Maybe a thread about Zimmerman, Martin and John.

[cboldt]

Oh, and if you could find a source that has Wolfinger meeting or even talking by phone with Lee on the night of Feb 26/27, that predates Matt Gutman's March 27 article ... thanks.

[Rob Crawford]

I think she says "not enough to inict or convict" and leaves it for the Feds and the civil iitigation.

Funny thing about the civil litigation...

Powerline cited what looks like the entire law, and there's this interesting bit:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action...

[John]

This is rapidly turning into a "Duke" case.
The race pimps and the media making claims that can not be verified. Creating evidence out of thin air or with false statements. Prompting statements from rumor or supposition. No tolerance for any activity that does not support their racist line argument. No desire to await the forensics to provide hard evidence.
No real evidence that do not support Mr. Zimmermans story line.

I can understand the race pimps desire to feel that they are in fact still important in todays society, even though they want to drag that society back to the 60's or 70's.
I understand the medias need to support the liberal agenda and the blame America for everything philosophy, but they are rapidly losing what little credibility that they possessed. They are rapidly becoming a symbol for lack of honesty or integrety.

[narciso]

They do point out the edited call, about 2/3 down, along with the Spike Lee tweeting incident, they have daggers out for the Daily Caller though

NBC and MSNBC are under fire from conservatives after the "Today" show edited the recording of a 911 call that made it appear Zimmerman proactively described Trayvon as someone who "looks black." In reality, Zimmerman said that only after a dispatcher him asked about Trayvon's race — a question that NBC omitted.

State Rep. Alan Williams, D-Tallahassee, has changed his Twitter avatar to depict him wearing the type of “hoodie” sweatshirt the unarmed Trayvon wore on his last night. Chicago Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush wore a hoodie on the U.S. House floor, prompting Florida’s highest-profile black Republican, Congressman Allen West, to criticize the action as “gimmickry.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/30/2723557/trayvon-martins-shooting-death.html#storylink=cpy

[Clarice]

TM: "How many ways can we recycle the same basic points? Let's see!" You're just trying to knock Sybilvia out with her own demented spinning.

[Rob Crawford]

Well - if this was a coverup, rather than a simple dispute about sufficient grounds for probable cause, what would have happened to the lead investigator next?

(d) He's chewed out by this by-the-book chief for being a rogue cop, forced to hand over his piece and badge, and given time off to think about what he's done. During which time he hits the streets on his own, determined to dig into the Great Conspiracy Behind It All.

Hey, it seems like the anti-Zimmerman people get their ideas of police work from TV and movies, so why not figure out what would happen in that genre?

[cboldt]

-- ... He is just complaining.

Proves nothing, but please - send better leaks. If the guy who didn't like GZ's story had a free hand to investigate and came up with nothing, maybe it is because there is nothing there. --

Maybe Serino isn't complaining at all. Maybe the very foundation of the "unhappy lead investigator leads to special override meeting with DA and police chief" is false. Maybe he's a happy lead investigator, or at least satisfied that Zimmerman was justified.

[matt]

Did they find Skittles and iced tea at the scene? Enquiring Minds want to Know!!!

[Ignatz]

--and, when contrasted with Ann Curry in a later segment, she was much more likeable and pleasant.--

This,

contrasted with Ann Curry, is not only much more likable and pleasant but is at least one standard deviation smarter than Ann Curry.

[Threadkiller]

I am all for recycling basic points.

"Evoking an overlooked provision of state law, Arizona tea party groups are circulating a petition urging a chamber of the state legislature to pass a resolution that would force Arizona’s secretary of state to examine Barack Obama’s birth credentials.

The law does not require a signature from Gov. Jan Brewer, who previously vetoed a bill that would have required Secretary of State Ken Bennett to ensure Obama is eligible for Arizona’s 2012 ballot.

Brian Reilly, co-chairman of a gathering of tea party groups held Saturday at the Church on the Green in Sun City West, Ariz., said the strategy is to “force the hand” of Bennett “without requiring the Arizona legislature to pass a bill in both houses and to get the governor’s signature.”

Reilly said the petition serves as a “command for the Arizona secretary of state to perform,” which would require Obama to submit eligibility documentation even if Arizona never passes an eligibility statute."

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/tea-party-to-arizona-check-obamas-eligibility/?cat_orig=politics

What a twist!

[Clarice]

In case you didn't see this further evidence of the character of GZ (from Instapundit)

NARRATIVE-DESTROYING QUOTE OF THE DAY. “Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.”

If only the media had people whose job it was to find out things like this and report them.

[Thomas Collins]

"Back on this audio topic, either that Orlando Sentinel story is going to join the ABC News video boots up in the graveyard, or I am. No prisoners!"

TM, you are setting the bar too low for yourself. I'm expecting you to use your investigative skills and contacts to come up with a voice sample for Martin!

By the way, I'm not a Deist, but am a believer in Divine Intervention, so that I hold the view that you can't hijack your own thread. You're simply divinely intervening!

[narciso]

LOL. Clarice, that's like something Janet would say.

[The Divine Mr. M.]

We do have a witness named John. Maybe a thread about Zimmerman, Martin and John.

Has anybody here,
Seen my witness George
Can you tell me where he's been...

Oh, brother.

[Tom Maguire]

OK, I have to put down this computer and backway slowly...

[Krystal]

Martin's father already said that it was not Trayvon's voice yelling for help on the 911 tapes. I had read that a week or so ago and it is again being stated on American Thinker today. So why the need for experts when his Dad already said it was not him?

[His current explanation is he told the police he couldn't be sure and they deceptively put that out as a definite "no". Bad behavior if accurate. Or, if a grieving dad is confused or misspoke, give him a pass.

Mom and others have now got the correct answer, as do Zimmerman relatives/friends.

And basic psych suggests people hear what they want to hear. Does Martin's mom want to hear a tape showing her son was a vicious mugger who had it coming, or showing he was a victim who needs justice? How about Zimmerman's dad? TM]

[Douglas2]

Just to point out that the conference mentioned is not about the use of "voiceprints" in forensics and investigation of crime. It will mostly have people who work on systems using voice biometrics in place of or a supplement to computer passwords. Some of the technology of spectral/formant analysis might be the same, but the tolerance for type 1 and type 2 errors will be quite different.

[Neo]

The screaming is neither Zimmerman nor Martin, so let's start looking for a third mystery witness?

[Jane]

NARRATIVE-DESTROYING QUOTE OF THE DAY.

I hope TM will make that into a blog post as I suspect he has become the go to guy on this and it needs publicizing.

here is the link:

[daniel]

The word "likelihood" in the field of statistics has a technical meaning that few people have heard of. Given a hypothesis and some data, the likelihood of the hypothesis given the data is defined to be the probability of getting the data given the hypothesis.
Thus, if you know absolutely nothing about the subject, and have no idea, if GZ was the speaker, whether the sound came from him, you might guess that the probability that he made those sounds is 1/2; that it is equiprobable that he did or did not make the sounds. This means that knowing absolutely nothing corresponds with that equiprobable assumption, to a likelihood of 50% that GZ was the screamer.
The analyzers claim that the likelihood they found was 48% which would mean that their methods contributed essentially nothing to the complete lack of information they started with; only enough to change 50% likelihood to 48%.
They correctly observe that this likelihood is insufficient to make a positive statement that GZ was the screamer.
This is obvious. If you know essentially nothing you cannot make a positive identification. However this does not at all mean that you can take this as evidence against the hypothesis that GZ was the screamer. To do so is almost exactly as absurd as concluding from this non-evidence that he is the screamer. In statistics a likelihood of 5% or less for a hypothesis is required to it be considered "significant" evidence to rule it out. Even then 5% likelihood only means that there is only a one in twenty chance that, if GZ was the screamer, it would sound like it did. 48% likelihood means essentially nothing.
Yet ignorant folk seem to consider not establishing definitive positive evidence means establishing definitive negative evidence. That is not so.

[Sue]

Dear Leader has caught our disease.

[Janet]

This should be video of the speech glasater was referring to.

[Janet]

Sorry, wrong thread.

[AMac78]

The question that we care about is, “Who was yelling in the background of the 911 call?”

This JOM post does the best job I've seen at connecting this question to what these voice analyses claim that they can tell us about.

Given that the cries are from either Zimmerman or Trayvon, I'd expect two results:

“This voice analysis yields an X probability that the yells came from Zimmerman."

"This voice analysis yields a Y probability that the yells came from Trayvon.”

Owen's software claims it can supply both X and Y. But alas, there’s no sample of Trayvon’s voice, so Y is missing.

We have a number for X: 48%. If Y was equal to 99%, we'd intuitively think “this program supports the idea that Trayvon and not Zimmerman was yelling on the tape.” But what if Y was 30%, or 48%, or 65%? How would those pairs of numbers be interpreted? I can’t say. Can anyone?

Beyond that, we also need to critically evaluate how robust the software package actually is at accomplishing what it claims to do.

Clinical lab tests have parameters with acronyms like QNS (Quantity Not Sufficient) and OOC (Out Of Calibration). These inform the operator that (for instance) a low number doesn’t mean that there is only a little bit of analyte in the sample. Rather, they mean “the test isn’t operating within its design space, so its outcome is not reliable.”

Does Owen's voice analysis package have readouts like “recording too poor” and “reference and query recordings too dissimilar”? I don’t know. If it does, have these readouts been correctly validated, so that they show up every time that they should? Again, I don’t know.

The post outlined a way to validate the software package for analyzing low-quality recordings of “Help!” against spoken words. If I were doing this, I might start with samples of actors’ dialog and panicked shouts from horror movies. Then put together a double-blind test protocol, comparing actor A’s screams with dialog from A, B, C, and D. And so on. Has this actually been done — in a trustworthy fashion — for this software package? I rather doubt it.

[Let's go to the movies! The day is young (OK, middle-aged), but that has got to be the most original idea I have seen. And I know from Googling that free voice recognition software is out there.

Or even better! Some big-time reporter could set up a challenge file for Tom Owen. That would make GREAT television - show clips of beautiful, scantily clad screaming co-eds just before Freddi K gets them, then make Owen play Name That Screamer!. Or for the ladies, screaming (but still manly!) men, maybe dying in battle. Too bad so many movies are heavily edited and re-dubbed. But so what?

Did I say that was a good idea? Wrong! It is a GREAT idea!

Too bad they will only air the clip if he makes the matches...

And does anyone think I'm stealing this for tomorrow? You know that's right.]

[A. Scott]

There ARE voices suitable for at least a basic comparison between Martin and Zimmerman. His father and his brother have both spoken to the media at length.

As has Zimemrman's brother.

Both Martin's brother and father have lower voices - more toward baritones.

Both Zimmerman and his brother have higher, slightly "softer" voices - more towards tenors.

The voice on the tape - especially when you use the cleaned up Sentinel version - seems very clear it is much more like Zimmerman's tenor than Martins likely lower baritone.

Add that the cleaned up recording of the screams indicates it is NOT all shouting "help" - much of of it just plain screams - the exact type thing one would do if being attacked

It seems clear - using the cleaned up Sentinel tape - that even the most basic listen would say it is far more likely to be Zimmerman than Martin screaming.

[Annoying Old Guy]

The screaming is neither Zimmerman nor Martin, so let's start looking for a third mystery witness?

No, clearly they should search for second gunman. Any grassy knolls in the community?

[b]

Oh to have the scales fall from our eyes and seeing in the cold light of day what passes for scientific analysis and expertise.

Here's what our prototypical "enterprising journalist" will do: Get a copy of this golden software of which expert Owens is so enamored, and financially non-disinterested in (would we call that usage di-litotic, or maybe double litote?) and run all sorts of comparisons--it doesn't even have to be Zimmerman or Martin. Just random people screaming versus speaking.

And watch the software fail miserably to achieve 90% certainty against sample pairs known to be from the same person.

Then follow-up with a nice 10000 word Wired article questioning all audio evidence admitted in court since the dawn of time.

N.B. What percent of scientific studies are junk? Hint: If you are thinking in the 1% range you are off by a factor of 33-67, depending on which (junk) metastudy you believe.

[John D]

As a 20 year 911 dispatcher I can tell you that people's voices change drastically when they're stress or scared.

I've heard some pretty manly cops squeal like little girls on the radio.

[Gus]

Logic is your friend.
There will NEVER be an agreement nor consensus on who was yelling. "HEP ME HEP ME, I've fallen and I can't get up";

But we DO KNOW, (unless your a fugging libtard race baiting idiot), that ONE of the 2 people in the fracas, had an injured nose, and had his head bashed against the pavement.

Furthermore, MORON LIBTARDS were trying make conclusions vis a vis the FUNERAL DIRECTOR. (a douchebag btw.)NO INJURIES ON SKITTLES that would indicate a FIGHT!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Fuxing hilarious, the guy who had his head bashed on the pavement had the INJURIES.
One guy with injuries. One guy dead.
The guy with injuries shot the guy WITHOUT injuries.

"Mr Holmes, Mr Sherlock Holmes to the white-hispanic house phone"