I Screamed It Couldn't Be Done

The Orlando Sentinel brings on some voice experts to analyze a 911 call in the Trayvon Martin shooting to attempt to establish whether it is Zimmerman or Martin screaming for help.  I have previously expressed my skepticism of this process:

Then we may hear from the FBI audio wizards.  On CSI they would crack this easily (as would Abby on NCIS).  But here in Realityville we are hearing background noise on a 911 call, not hi-fi from a sound studio; I presume we lack past tapes of Trayvon screaming in pain, and we aren't likely to have the authorities beat up George Zimmerman and record his anguished cries.

So, how credible will the FBI wizards be?  I would guess "Not very", which means we are back to reasonable doubt, but folks with relevant expertise are urged to chime in.

[Down in the updates I stack up four experts who agree that the voice quality of the different samples needs to be similar as a starting point for the matching process, so score one for common sense.]

These experts brought in by the Orlando Sentinel overcome the lack of past Martin voice samples by just not worrying about it.  Strong stuff!

Tom 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.

Actually, his software [rolled out March 1, 2012, so this version has a track record of roughly zero] failed to "rule-in" Zimmerman; Pressing on, with my emphasis on the non-trust of Martin:

Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story.

...

Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library's Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis — a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match.

After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.

"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice [presumably from the Zimerman 911 call]. 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.

...

Another benefit of modern biometric analysis, Owen said, is it doesn't require an "in context" comparison. In other words, Owen didn't need a sample of Zimmerman screaming in order to compare his voice to the call.

I am not now and do not aspire to become an expert on the strengths and limitations of voice biometric analysis (although such an effort will surely result in samples of my screaming as a by-product).  However, the Zimmerman defense (if it ever reaches the trial stage) will introduce bafflegab like this:

Therefore, all that the system would learn about the identity of the individual is tainted by the channel characteristics through which the audio had to pass. On the hand, at the time of performing the identification or verification, a completely different channel could be used. For example, this time, the person being identified or verified may call from his/her home number or an office phone. These may either be digital phones going through voice T1 services or may be analog telephony devices going through analog switches and being transferred to digital telephone company switches, on the way.  They would have specific characteristics in terms of dynamics, cut-off frequencies, color, timber, etc. These channel characteristics are basically modulated with the characteristics of the person’s vocal tract. Channel mismatch is the source of most errors in speaker recognition.

Another problem is signal variability. This is by no means specific to speaker recognition. It is a problem that haunts almost all biometrics. In general, an abundance of data is needed to be able to cover all the variations within an individual’s voice. But even then, a person in two different sessions, would possibly have more variation within his/her own voice than if the signal is compared to that of someone else’s voice, who possesses similar vocal traits.  The existence of wide intra-class variations compared with inter-class variations makes it difficult to be able to identify a person accurately. Inter-class variations denote the difference between two different individuals while intra-class variations represent the variation within the same person’s voice in two different sessions.

Hmm, I started the morning believing I was not anti-science, but my view may evolve (if I believe in evolution...).  Let's wave in [from the Updates below] Mr Primeau, the second Orlando Sentinel expert to address this (my emphasis):

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.

Oooh, trouble in Paradise!  Don't you hate it when experts disagree? 

What this says to me is that establishing an accurate match of one person (such as for a bank account password) is dependent on the media used, and the quality of the person's voice.  The media differences with the 911 screaming call versus the baseline Zimmerman 911 call is unknown to me.  The Sanford recording equipment should be the same for both, but we may have a Zimmerman cell phone versus the 911 land line call, for example.

I also infer that the voice quality has to be affected by the screaming, if a recognition system can have trouble identifying a person's normal speaking voice from one day to the next.

So I now have learned that, with the 48 percent match, if I call my bank screaming in pain they won't authenticate me; good to know at tax season.  But that doesn't mean it's not me, it just means they can't confirm the match.

I don't think American jurispridence is ready for the notion that, since the whiz-bang science that defies common sense about screaming says the voice is not conclusively Zimmerman's, it must be Martin's.  The second expert sidesteps that neatly:

Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings.

He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion.

"I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming."

The prospective Zimmerman defense will focus on the fact that this second expert does not believe in the whiz-bang technology and is quite clear that a proper comparison requires similar speaking styles; no shouting, please.  As to his confidence that this voice is Martin, even though he has never heard Martin's voice - I am speechless.  I think I could handle that cross-examination, maybe even without a cup of coffee.

If I were the prosecutor I would be begging for better experts - sending up a guy who doesn't believe in the science won't be helpful.  Sending up a guy who says he can't match it to Zimmerman so it must be Martin will be ripped up by defense experts who will explain the limitations of the techniques (to be fair, the first expert doesn't claim it is Martin's voice, which leaves us wondering, what would he tell us if neither voice matched?).  The defense will uncharitably point out that it might not be possible to match the voice to either person, the judge can then expound on "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt", and away we will go.

Now, let's be fair - the Orlando Sentinel actually showed some initiative here by bringing in some experts, so that's a good job by them.  But the story ought to include a lawyer to tell us where the burden of proof lies and what the standards for evidence might be.  As a bonus, I am sure they could find trial lawyers with experience with audio experts and evidence in a courtroom - what do they think?

The story also ought to mention 'John', the witness who told the police on the night of the shoting that he saw Martin beating Zimmerman and heard Zimmerman calling for help.  That sets a high hurdle for the prosecution. 

HMM: Yesterday CNN covered 'John' by shoving him down the memory hole; are we seeing a pattern?

MY HEAD IS SPINNING: Am I anti-science because I don't accept on faith the pronouncements of these two experts in a field far beyond my expertise?  Or am I pro-science because I am trying to reach an independent opinion guided by other experts whose qualifications I am unable to evaluate?  That might seem like a hard question, but since I am a righty, I know libs know the answer.

THAT WOULD TIE IN TO THE 48% MATCH:

From 'myiq2xu', who may also be aided by stronger coffee:

Did anyone consider the possibility that BOTH men were screaming and yelling at the same time?

If Zimmerman did half the screaming they have a 96% match.  Kidding.  The linked article about the compounded difficulties of identifying one voice and separating two would suggest that the defense will make this point:

The existence of wide intra-class variations compared with inter-class variations makes it difficult to be able to identify a person accurately. Inter-class variations denote the difference between two different individuals while intra-class variations represent the variation within the same person’s voice in two different sessions.

If this trial is televised I won't be able to hit the remote and get to baseball quickly enough.

HOW DOES IT WORK:  Excellent intel from Cecil Turner, who musters some demonstration videos of the Easy Voice Biometrics system. Apparently they can come pretty close to spotting Richard Nixon (86% from one speech to another, lending credence to the talk that there really was a New Nixon) and do OK (above 90%) with lightly disguised voices.  A demo of someone matching a scream would seal the deal but I see no such claims on their website.

Interesting - I see from their press release that they just started shipping their product on March 1, 2012.  Well, I guess they welcome the headlines, but that suggests they have zero track record in a court room for this version.  Sadly, the JOM budget does not include $4,995 for their software, so we won't be demoing it at home.

BUT DESPITE MY BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS:

I am waving in my own expert witness, who claims to have been doing this for decades.  By uncanny coincidence, he is the same guy the Orlando Sentinel used, but whatev.  Let's cut to his bottom line on comparisons based on shouting versus speaking (my emphasis):

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.

Well, the Orlando Sentinel won't want to interview him.  Oh, wait - they did!  Well, they won't want to put their two experts in the same room then.  But the hypothetical Zimmerman defense team will. 

Remember, this guy is so good he can identify Martin's shouting without ever hearing it - sign him up! Team JOM gets props, especially narciso.

THE BUDGET LOOKS GOOD:  Let's hire 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.

Or maybe natural, normal screaming, if you need a headline to push your product.  No word yet on whether Stutchman et al are good enough to ID Martin without hearing his voice.

STILL MORE EXPERTS: From p. 91 of a guide to audio forensics, IEEE SIGNAL PROCESSING MAGAZINE [91] MARCH 2009:

AURAL-SPECTROGRAPHIC VOICE IDENTIFICATION

Audio forensic examination of recorded dialog may lead to a legal dispute over the identity of one or more of the conversation participants. A criminal suspect or a party to civil litigation may deny being the individual who uttered the recorded words, especially if the recording was made via telephone without eyewitnesses to identify the talker visually. In these situations, the forensic audio examiner may be asked to identify or to exclude that the suspect was the source of the words in the recording in question.

The aural-spectrographic method for audio forensic voice identification is based on the judgment of a trained examiner who compares the unknown example of speech with one or more known examples [30]–[33]. As the name of the method implies, the task of the examiner is to render a judgment based on both an aural comparison (careful listening) and a visual comparison of speech spectrograms.

In a typical case, the examiner begins by listening critically to the recording of the unknown talker and identifies specific phrases that are distinctive and relatively noise-free.  The examiner then arranges a recording session with the suspect to create exemplars that match the selected phrases of the unknown talker in pace, emphasis, and enunciation. The suspect repeats each example phrase multiple times to produce recordings with as close a match as possible to the timing and speech pattern of the unknown examples.

Or, the target screams hysterically in the background of a 911 call and liberals lap it up like kittens.  Either way.

ONLY SUPPORTIVE BY IMPLICATION: Here is Forensic Science Services telling us how they like it done in Canada (my emphasis is on the last sentence):

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.

Background screamers need not apply.

So, is there any reasonable doubt that experts aren't going to line up behind the comparison of the background screaming to the Zimmerman 911 call and silence from Martin?

If our friends on the left could provide an article or two suggesting that the experts above are wrong that would be helpful.  Bonus points for evidence that this breakthrough method not widely endorsed will be accepted in a court and not crushed by a phalanx of defense experts arguing the conventionl wisdom.

Comments

[xbradtc]

3. The mystery in this case -- the great unknown -- is why Zimmerman was not charged and booked. It's a legitimate issue (and I think Trayvon's parents call to get the DoJ involved is not unreasonable). It's also one that it would be irresponsibnle to answer right now.

Because the information available wasn't sufficient to sustain an indictment. Further, speedy trial attaches. Since there is no statute of limitations on murder, and the prosecution only gets one shot, why not wait? Is the interest of the state justice, or crowd control?

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

I don't think my $25 is in jeopardy, do you?

[Extraneus]

What other scenario makes sense?

None that I've been able to come up with, but I have an open mind.

[Porchlight]

Oops, I take it back - it should be American Board of Recorded Evidence, not Forensic Evidence.

However, searching "American Board of Recorded Evidence" -zimmerman -owen

generates a host of vaguely sketchy hits. If I had to guess, it's a for-profit certification agency.

[narciso]

Remember this controversy from some years back

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=tom_owen_1

[Threadkiller]

I remember this controversy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlmCu-kH-nk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[xbradtc]

Well, whatdyaknow, the Chair Emeritus of the ABRE////

Thomas J. Owen, BA, FACFEI, DABRE, CHS-V

[xbradtc]

Daughter dear is on the board as well...

http://www.abreboard.us/

[narciso]

Wait, there's more,

http://trueaudioforensics.blogspot.com/2010/01/audio-forensics.html

[xbradtc]

Having experience as an acoustic engineer who has listened to literally hundreds of hours of spoken word recordings, in addition to sophisticated electronic software programs, has contributed to my success with voice identification.

I listen to talk radio. Does that make me a audio forensic expert?

[narciso]

And this fellow seems to run his own shop, in addition to his other duties;

http://stutchmanforensic.com/

[Rob Crawford]

We have strong evidence that supports George's statements, but we don't have any statements or other evidence that corroborates his statement about how the initial contact between George and Martin transpired.

You're right, we don't know what happened at the moment of contact up to the point of the shot being fired.

But that's AFTER the end of Zimmerman's 911 call.

[julescator]

In a week or two some of you will have Martin chasng Zimmerman and Martin with the guy. It's getting more and more ridiculous. Just go back to how you felt when you heard OJ's wife was killed. Most of you said he as guilty from the start with NO evidence. OJ certainly wasn't holding a smoking knife AND at the scene of the crime yet he was arrested.

Zimmerman stalked the kid. Every piece of evidence says Zimmerman killed the kid in cold blood. Also - the eveidence that comes out each day supports the fact that Zimmerman has been telling less than the truth.

The Sanford Lead Homicide Investigator determined that Zimmerman should be arrested for at the very least, manslaughter.

Things didn't go off the rails until the State Prosecutor overtuned the orginal decision - more than likely political. So here we are at the intersection of racism & Police incompetence = bad combo.

[julescator]

Oops - meant to type "gun" not guy. My bad.

[Jim Ryan]

Every piece of evidence says Zimmerman killed the kid in cold blood.

You need to get this information to the authorities right away!

[Appalled]

julescator:

The evidence appears to cut both ways. What is NOT clear to me is how close and in what position were Zimmerman and Trayvon when the shot was fired? That would seem to tell a lot about what happened. And I do not remember seeing a thing about something that seems pretty basic.

[Mustang0302]

I listen to talk radio. Does that make me a audio forensic expert?

Unmasking seminar callers!

BTW, xbradtc, my info was already out of date...Scruggs has already settled since then for an undisclosed amount. Estimates vary...all over the place. Rejecting the initial $200K offer was apparently just the first round of horsetrading.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Julescator:

Call your first witness.

[jimmyk]

The evidence appears to cut both ways.

Really, appalled? Please point out the evidence cutting in the direction of Zimmerman killing Trayvon in cold blood. (We know he killed Trayvon, so pointing out that he had a gun and shot it is not evidence that he did so "in cold blood.")

[Porchlight]

Appalled,

Multiple witnesses say Martin was on top of Zimmerman just before the shot was fired and that Zimmerman was crying for help. So that evidence does not "cut both ways" - or at least there is nothing that gives any credence to the idea that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance, in cold blood.

[xbradtc]

Every piece of evidence says Zimmerman killed the kid in cold blood.

Nothing says cold blood like having your victim sit on your chest and beat you.

[Jan]

I think you doth protest too much...you should try to look at things without a built-in bias...it's amazing what you might see.

[Ignatz]

Oops - meant to type "gun" not guy. My bad.

'My bad' pretty much covered the whole comment, dude.

[narciso]

Thanks, TM, I had missed the updates,

[xbradtc]

I think you doth protest too much...you should try to look at things without a built-in bias...it's amazing what you might see.

Please illuminate for me where my built-in bias has caused me to overlook information or interpret it incorrectly.

[Threadkiller]

Without "built in bias" you are a narrator and nothing more.

Sell Shamwows if that is the extent of your contribution.

Wait a minute, I guess he is biased too.

[Jan]

These people are certified to testify in court, Tom. Are you? ...Didn't think so.

[Threadkiller]

You sound biased Jan.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Jan-

Are you certified, enough, to have a valid opinion, sitting in that lifeguard chair, or did you stay at Holiday Inn Express again?

[xbradtc]

Jan, jurors, you know, people like you and me? They have the duty to weigh the credibility of any testimony from witnesses. I've seen enough evidence here to call into question a good bit of any testimony these "experts" might give. And that's before any defense attorney gets around to impeaching their testimony.

[Jim Ryan]

...Didn't think so.

Ouch. That's got to hurt. You so totally pwned TM.

[Melinda Romanoff]

TK-

Fun little data point, on topic, can be glanced at here.

[Ignatz]

--I think you doth protest too much...you should try to look at things without a built-in bias...it's amazing what you might see.--

Jan,
I take your comment to mean a person who has built in bias can't see things.
So how do you know it's not you that's blind and who incorrectly thinks others are?

[Melinda Romanoff]

Ig-

Go look at that link above. It's a real jaw dropper.

[Rob Crawford]

Things didn't go off the rails until the State Prosecutor overtuned the orginal decision - more than likely political.

Or the lack of evidence contradicting Zimmerman exercised his right to self defense.

These people are certified to testify in court, Tom.

Really? Who issues these certifications?

[Rob Crawford]

And the next person who says the shooting was caused by "racism" deserves a twelve-hour long swirly.

[Threadkiller]

Great link, Mel. A little biased, but great nonetheless.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

These people are certified to testify in court, Tom.

Does the name Daubert mean anything to you?

Didn't think so.

[myiq2xu]

Really? Who issues these certifications?

Crack R. Jack

[Enlightened]

Ok here is another angle that peaks my interest. 911 calls for "suspicious persons" are not even close to a priority call. Normally a officer responds when they can. GZ 911 call was in no way a priority call - no weapons mentioned, no injuries, no fighting, no rioting, no property damage - nothing but a "suspicious person" was mentioned. And yet the police responded and were on scene in roughly 9 minutes. On average 911 response time for priority calls is 5-8 minutes. So it seems to me the police thought this was a urgent situation. Which again leads me to think maybe someone called 911 in addition to GZ to report a suspicious person.

[Appalled]

Porchlight:

The person calling for help is at least in dispute. And cold blood has nothing to do with it. If Zimmerman had successfully disentangled himself from Trayvon, and THEN plugged him, it's different than him plugging him while still wrestling.

I don't really care to speculate. I just don't think we know what we think we know aboput what happened.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Enlightened: I think I read that Z called the non-emergency number, not the 911 emergency line. However, the police probably responded to the 911 emergency call(s) by witness John and other apt. residents. As I recall, several calls were made.

[Ignatz]

--Ig-

Go look at that link above. It's a real jaw dropper.--

Saw that a couple of days ago Mel. Who da thunk it?

[Ignatz]

--Crack R. Jack

Posted by: myiq2xu | April 01, 2012 at 10:42 PM--

That's funny, whoever you are.
Happy birthday too, but that picture was seriously disturbing.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Sara-

If I were a community watch type, and I'm not, because I live across the street from a County Deputy and his two police sons living at home, I would program into my clam shell phone the ability to hold down the #1 and it would automatically dial the non-emergency police dispatch desk, which is what I would wager transpired.

[Threadkiller]

Has anybody looked at my link at 7:44.

Local news is the best.

[Melinda Romanoff]

TK-

That 7:44 better be "PM".

[Melinda Romanoff]

I'm not commenting any further on Renee's abilities.

[Threadkiller]

She understands what a gobbler is.

[Tom Maguire]

In a week or two some of you will have Martin chasng Zimmerman and Martin with the guy.

Martin with a guy? Where is his girlfriend and why is this a week away from morphing into a gay rights spectacle?

Oops - meant to type "gun" not guy.

Whew.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

The person calling for help is at least in dispute. And cold blood has nothing to do with it. If Zimmerman had successfully disentangled himself from Trayvon, and THEN plugged him, it's different than him plugging him while still wrestling.

What is in dispute? John saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and heard Zimmerman screaming for help, he calls 911, looks back at the sound of the shot and sees Martin lifeless lying next to Zimmerman and then another witness sees Zimmerman on his feet appearing dazed and holding his head.

And I don't discount this neighbor's report less than 24 hours after the incident:

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

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

He described where the injuries were.

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

He points out exactly where on a picture.

"I seen the bandage right here, and this side of his nose and this side of his nose was swollen.

The surveillance video was released by Sanford police of Zimmerman when he was brought in for questioning after the shooting. Bruises and bandages aren't visible, but you can see an officer looking at the back of his head.

"Once you get into a fight you don't show bruises that day, it shows the next day," he said.

The neighbor says Zimmerman had to have acted in self-defense.

"I think something happened that night where he had to defend himself," the neighbor said.

He says that the voice heard screaming on the 911 call is that of George Zimmerman.

"I hear his voice every single day, I talk to him every single day," he said.

He says the case has haunted him.

"I've been thinking about it morning noon and night ever since I seen the bandages on him," he said.

He believes Zimmerman was defending his life, and that's why he's defending Zimmerman now. He says he doesn't believe race played a role in what happened.

"I don't think race is involved at all, because I've seen black, African-American folks come to George's house," he said.

The neighbor says he's tired of Zimmerman being portrayed as the bad guy.

"Everyone needs to let the justice system take its course before rushing to judgment," he said.

[Ignatz]

--Has anybody looked at my link at 7:44.

Local news is the best.--

Now I have.
If she only does it that way she won't need a diaphragm call.

[Melinda Romanoff]

And quietly hunting turkey next fall will be a challenge enough without that imagery.

[Jim Ryan]

If Martin turns out to have been gay, I'll switch sides. But if I find out Martin ate meat, then I'm going to go back to Zimmerman's side. Do we know Zimmerman's wife's skin color?

[Melinda Romanoff]

Jim-

If you're going down that road, don't forget to follow up on the Chicharrones angle.

TK-

Reading Kate's (SDA) stuff, when she's not on the road, is a ton of fun. I used to haunt there regularly during the digs into Oil-for-Food, Desmarais/Strong antics.

Quite the edumacation.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Do we know Zimmerman's wife's skin color?

I have not heard. However, there was a good looking black guy on Fox the other day who was defending Zimmerman against charges of racism. He said he had been a very close friend of George's for the past six years.

[Ignatz]

--If Martin turns out to have been gay, I'll switch sides. But if I find out Martin ate meat...--

Wait. What?

[daddy]

Instalanche! Stand by for incoming.

[Frau Aprilejeck]

Sara, you always bring some new, interesting info. Thanks.

[JZ]

"Hmm, I started the morning believing I was not anti-science, but my view may evolve (if I believe in evolution...)."

You are, all the way. You are engaging in pseudoscience by cutting and pasting quotes instead of seeking the evidence that would falsify your most cherished hypothesis.

"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."

That's pretty easy to do with Zimmerman. My hypothesis predicts that Zimmerman won't do that and you won't call for him to do that.

"What this says to me is that establishing an accurate match of one person (such as for a bank account password) is dependent on the media used, and the quality of the person's voice."

Then demand that Zimmerman produce a positive control recording! That's what someone seeking the truth would call for.

"If I were the prosecutor I would be begging for better experts - sending up a guy who doesn't believe in the science won't be helpful."

That's probably the most lame thing you've written about this.

You're just wishing that the prosecutor will be a pseudoscientist like you. I'd be challenging Zimmerman to produce a control recording. The pretense that you are trying on both hats here is transparently phony.

[RWS]

From a 2009 article in Popular mechanics..."CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics....."

"...Some types of evidence may be completely discredited. That's what happened with voiceprint analysis and lead analysis of bullets, which were popular forensic techniques until studies showed significant error rates."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/4325774

[htom]

How about comparisons when someone's hands are around the subject's throat, changing the acoustic impedance of the subject's vocal tract?

[xbradtc]

JZ, so far, all we have is two press releases from self proclaimed experts.

Zimmermann is under no compulsion to produce ANY evidence, or to refute any claims by anyone. And you can be damn sure any attorney he has retained has reminded him of that time and time again.

Now, if the Sanford PD, or the DA's office had produced 2 experts that claimed the voice on the tape wasn't Zimmermann, that might be of interest, but would hardly be conclusive evidence that Zimmerman was not defending himself. Because you still have to get over the hurdle that witnesses have seen Martin on top of Zimmermann.

[JeffC]

like I've said from the beginning ... that night a wannabe thug ran into a better armed thug and lost ...

[Dave]

"Can this thing devolve into any more absurdity?"

As Bill Cosby said, don't ever challenge worse.

[O2BNAZ]

The Democrats used to lynch Blacks by drumming up false narratives...now they're lynching Mexicans

[Strawman Cometh]

By all accounts I've read, his mother is Peruvian.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"If this trial is televised I won't be able to hit the remote and get to baseball quickly enough."

You really think there's going to be a trial? You're an optimist, Tom.

[elkh1]

Anything for Michelle Antoinette's husband. He tried OWS, Fluke-slut, now the son he never had... How about a race war and declare martial law, ala buddy Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías when he lost his re-election? May be Putin, the Czar of new Russia will come to his rescue so he could be "more flexible" about giving them our missiles defence?

[someguy]

Hmmm ...

Tom Owen. Is he really a "forensics expert?"

Well, no. He has a B.A. in History, not forensics.

Well, surely since he's an expert, he went to Harvard or Yale or Oxford, right?

Well, no he went to Bellarmine College in Kentucky. You've heard of Bellarmine College, right?

Well, but surely he's worked for the FBI or CIA as a forensics examiner?

No, but he did work for the New York Public Library in charge of their Rogers and Hammerstein archive.

But surely he's written some books about forensics that the FBI and CIA use, right?

No, but he has written extensively about the banjo and did a coloring book:

Tom Owen, Scaling the Fretboard (Chappell Music 1973)
Tom Owen, The Chord Coloring Book (Chappell Music 1974)
Tom Owen, Tenor Banjo (Chappell Music 1975)
Tom Owen, Lead Guitar (Chappell Music 1976)
Tom Owen, The Classic Blues Singers (Chappell Music 1977)

What about his wife Jennifer Owen ... surely she's a hotshot FBI forensics examiner, right?

No, she makes Powerpoint presentations and is a secretary with a political science degree, not a forensics degree.

But surely they have an advanced forensic acoustics laboratory where they conduct their forensic analysis right?

No, they just have a computer in the basement of their house in New Jersey right next to the railroad tracks.

But surely he's a member of the American Board of Recorded Evidence?

Yes, but he and his wife run the Board. He's the chairman, and she's a board member. The Board is run out of a weight-loss clinic in Springfield, Missouri along with a bunch of other dubious "boards," "colleges" and "Institutes."

American Board for Certification in Homeland Security‎ - Address: 2750 East Sunshine St. Springfield, MO
American Association for Integrative Medicine Inc - Address: 2750 East Sunshine St. Springfield, MO
American College of Forensic‎ Examiners International - Address: 2750 East Sunshine St. Springfield, MOC
College of Wellness - Address: 2750 East Sunshine St. Springfield, MO
American Psychotherapy Association - Address: 2750 East Sunshine St. Springfield, MO

There are no colleges or real boards here. There's a fat farm weight loss clinic at that location. They appear to have certified themselves experts by running this board themselves.

Now, let's examine the software they used to perform their analysis. How good is it?

Well, given two KNOWN samples of speech by President Richard M. Nixon, the software only matched two recordings to a 86% match.

Remember, Mr. Owen said he'd expect a 90% match before he concluded that the voices were identical. Although when he's testifying in murder cases, he claims a 68% match is enough to send someone to prison for the rest of their life (CT v Sheila Davalloo). Even in the software makers own demonstration of the product, using two KNOWN samples of speech from the same famous person, there was only an 86% match.

What about the algorithm they're using to make the comparison? How good is it? UNKNOWN. That's proprietary. They won't tell you what they're actually measuring.

What about the second "expert," Ed Primeau. Surely he was educated in forensics?

Nope. He was a Communication Major, like Katie Couric. Only he didn't graduate and was awarded no degree. He was a probation officer

Here's what he said: "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."

And remember, there's allegedly NO AUDIO TO COMPARE OF TRAYVON's VOICE. But somehow, the second expert was able to match it even without any way to compare what he heard to a known recording of Trayvon Martin.

[M. Simon]

Baffle gab? No engineer talk. And PERFECTLY understandable by another engineer.

[M. Simon]

And the point of this voice "recognition"? To impeach eyewitnesses and Trayvon's father's statements on the matter?

[Kathy Kattenburg]

There are no confirmed eyewitnesses to the shooting -- only unnamed people who say they saw something, and maybe they did, but at this point it's very vague.

And Trayvon's father was not on the scene. He's relying solely on what his son told him, which is perfectly understandable -- he's his father. But that's hardly unimpeachable evidence, either -- and certainly nothing you would take more seriously than what Trayvon's parents have said. I don't see how Robert Zimmerman is more credible than Trayvon's parents. Why would you believe him over them?

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

John was an eye witness to Trayvon pummeling George and George screaming.

[Ethel]

OK, now I have a migraine. I'm glad I'm not in this jury pool, but my inclination would probably be to disregard all this mumbo jumbo and go with eyewitness testimony.

[Patriot4Freedom]

Kathy K -

You should be ashamed of yourself - and you really should quit posting such easily disproven tripe.

Please go to the Sanford city website and read the Police Report and listen to the 911 calls.

The police took statements from witnesses that night, so there are clearly NOT "unnamed people" - they are just not known to the public. With the exception of several witnesses who have come forward and identified themselves. George Z himself voluntarily returned to the scene with the police to show them what he claimed happened.

Nothing that ANY of the parents say is dispositive, and no one here is saying so. You are entitled to think the prosecutor should have issued an arrest warrant, but you are not being honest when you claim that the shooting was not investigated. Neither are you honest when you claim that GZ confronted TM, without any evidence to support same.

If you are referring to the "actual moment the shot was fired", you are being completely disingenuous. Everyone knows who was shot, and who did the shooting. The lack of a witness to that exact moment in time is hardly an impediment to any reasoned determination of the events that transpired that night.

[Patriot4Freedom]

Kathy K -

BTW, I never did see a response to the last comments on the page here:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/03/call-me-mr-wonderful/comments/page/2/#comments

It appears you continue to post the same type of drivel. To quote a comment from "Dandy Tiger":
"Avoiding facts as they come out makes it easy to stick with a story that started with no facts. Keep up the good work."

[M. Simon]

jdw | April 01, 2012 at 03:25 PM

Yeah. The Drug War is a national disgrace.

[M. Simon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

for those interested

[M. Simon]

Kathy Kattenburg | April 02, 2012 at 02:03 AM,

Uh. I was under the impression we were discussing who was screaming.

[Extraneus]

Hey, myiq2xu, nice blog.

[M. Simon]

The suspect repeats each example phrase multiple times to produce recordings with as close a match as possible to the timing and speech pattern of the unknown examples.

The defense will never go that route. They have witnesses who gave police statements. And Mr. Martin's (pere) lapse.

[rhhardin]

If the voice stresses closed-class words (be, prepositions, relative pronouns etc.), it's Obama.

[H Squared]

"Maguire doesn't offer a conjecture about why Mr. Tom Owen would make up his conclusion. Nor does he challenge Mr. Owen's assertion that the 911 tape is very high quality. He's just throwing sand in his reader's eyes so that they can maintain the fiction that there remains any real doubt about the fact that Trayvon Martin was screaming in terror prior to being executed by George Zimmerman."

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/4/1/133135/5680

[Jim Ryan]

Whenever I execute someone I first get the police on the phone and lie underneath my victim and let him bounce my head on the pavement. Then I let him have it.

[myiq2xu]

Hey, myiq2xu, nice blog.

Thanks. We're Clinton Democrats/PUMAs.

We hated Obama before anyone else did.

[Melinda Romanoff]

No offense, mvig2, but I'm in Chicago. We knew what was coming looong before you might have seen the "true colors". "New" Party was the "tell".

[jwest]

Posted by: someguy | April 02, 2012 at 01:40 AM

It’s comments like this that make JOM the best place for information.

[Rhadee Ali]

It's amazing how you people are in denial. The more evidence that tatters Zimmerman's defence..the more in denial you all are!Rremember..the same voice identification used to identify Bin Ladin Recordings is being used in this case..you trust in in the case of Bin Ladinsw voice identification but you don't in the case of the ever so lying George Zimmerman? This speaks volumes about your character..or lack thereof!

[Melinda Romanoff]

Stick with that meme. It looks good on you.

Like eggs.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"John was an eye witness to Trayvon pummeling George and George screaming."
Yes, an anonymous witness known only by his first name (it it is his first name), John.

There needs to be a trial so that this witness and others can be subpoenaed by their real entire names and testify to what they saw and/or heard.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

That should be "IF it is his first name."

[Clarice]

Sure, let's break him on the wheel of justice even if we know er haven't probable cause of an arrest. You really are something, kk. "John" is a known entity--with lynch mobs roaming the place, it's better not to reveal his full identity I think.

[Cecil Turner]

Aw, what's a little witness intimidation amongst [girl]friends?

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Patriot4Freedom,

I have listened to two of the 911 calls: the one made by George Zimmerman himself, and the one made by a woman who heard the altercation from inside her home -- it was happening right in front of her house.

"You are entitled to think the prosecutor should have issued an arrest warrant, but you are not being honest when you claim that the shooting was not investigated. Neither are you honest when you claim that GZ confronted TM, without any evidence to support same."

I am not claiming the shooting was not investigated. Indeed, the problem is exactly the opposite: the shooting WAS investigated at the time it happened. George Zimmerman was questioned for five hours, and the Sanford police, from everything I've read and listened to, *wanted* to arrest him. But the prosecutor drove in to Sanford from 50 miles away when he heard of the arrest, and nixed it. He told the police to release Zimmerman, and that's what they did.

As for GZ confronting TM, it's not true there is "no evidence" to support this. It's fairly obvious, from listening to his 911 call, as well as the call TM made to his girlfriend just before he was shot (and that he was still on when he *was* shot), that he WAS following TM, and that TM, prior to realizing he was being followed, had not approached GZ or done anything to reasonably arouse suspicion.

It's entirely possible that there was some sort of scuffle before TM was shot, but keep in mind that TM had the same right to self-defense that anyone else has. GZ is not a police officer. He was not wearing a uniform of any kind. As far as TM had any way of knowing, he was a total stranger who was following him for no legitimate reason. He certainly had a right to defend himself. In fact, he stayed closer to the "Stand Your Ground" law than GZ did, since he literally was standing his ground, and GZ was following TM.

[Jim Ryan]

he literally was standing his ground

You need to get this information to the authorities right away, Kathy. There is an important investigation going on and they need this vital evidence.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"BTW, I never did see a response to the last comments on the page here:"

Gosh, Patriot4Freedom, I did not realize that I was obligated to continue answering comments until given permission to leave. The truth is, I didn't ignore those last two comments -- I just got involved in other stuff and forgot to return to the site. I'm really, really sorry.

[Clarice]

Gosh, did you HEAR that 911 call to the girlfriend or just see a report by someone who said that's what she said. I still haven't seen even her FIRST NAME andI never heard that call oe even saw a transcript of it.. I did hear the Martin counsel say the gf wasn't talking to the cops and would only speak to the feds. If you have evidence in your possession like that, TURN IT IN,

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"Uh. I was under the impression we were discussing who was screaming."

Yes, M. Simon. I read this line in Tom's post: "If this trial is televised I won't be able to hit the remote and get to baseball quickly enough." and then wrote a comment directly related to that sentence that Tom wrote in his post.

After this, I continued reading comments until I came to this one:
"And the point of this voice "recognition"? To impeach eyewitnesses and Trayvon's father's statements on the matter?"
I then proceeded to comment on the suggestion contained in this comment that the voice recognition constitutes "impeaching...eyewitnesses."
Following this, Patriot4Freedom responded to this comment that I made, and I then responded to his comment.

So that's how we got away from voice recognition. I hope this explanation suffices to clear up any confusion.

[Kathy Kattenburg]

"You need to get this information to the authorities right away, Kathy. There is an important investigation going on and they need this vital evidence."

I think they might need Tom's information about the inadequacy of the voice recognition tool's results, because they clearly don't have that.

They already have the information that I mentioned.