Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

So far as I can determine, you were not satisfied with this explanation. For this reason, I’m skeptical of your idea that the general public would have been satisfied with the response you now propose the SA could have given.

Satisfying the public has nothing to do with it, unless you’re implying the SA’s office should base its decisions (including those related to PR) on where the wind is blowing at any moment’s notice.

If there was insufficient evidence, then they had insufficient evidence. Honesty and professionalism would dictate that they would stand by that rather than implying that it was the cops who were responsible for how Zimmerman was handled, not they.

If they had stated that there was insufficient evidence to make an arrest when Zimmerman was interviewed, people probably would have complained, but they’d come off looking a whole lot better than they do now.

[PatriotX]

A few new tidbits

New Account: Zimmerman Told Cops Trayvon’s Last Words Were ‘Okay, You Got It’

this among them
“The source familiar with the case said that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigators had Zimmerman lie on his back in another location in an effort to recreate the position he said he had been in during the shooting. Then, the source said, investigators recorded Zimmerman as he shouted what had been heard on the 911 calls: cries such as, “Help me!””

[Bricker]

@Asimovian

I assume you mean what he sounds like when he’s shouting?

Well, yes.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

I think that when national attention on this blew up, prosecutors were leery of trying to explain the concept of probable cause, and specifically probable cause to believe that the force used was unlawful, the requirement of 776.032.
.
.
.
So my speculative opinion is he decided to throw the police department under the bus rather than try to explain the probable cause requirements to a generally hostile audience.

@you_with_the_face

“There wasn’t enough evidence to justify charges against Zimmerman at the time we were consulted on this issue”.

This took me all of two seconds to cook this up. Not a very complex or politically sticky statement, and it would have sufficiently covered all bases for everyone involved (assuming that it’s true).

@Bricker

The problem I have with this is that essentially identical information was offered at the beginning of the now-closed thread…
.
.
.
So far as I can determine, you were not satisfied with this explanation. For this reason, I’m skeptical of your idea that the general public would have been satisfied with the response you now propose the SA could have given.

@you_with_the_face

Satisfying the public has nothing to do with it, unless you’re implying the SA’s office should base its decisions (including those related to PR) on where the wind is blowing at any moment’s notice.

Satisfying the public is exactly what I meant when I said: “So my speculative opinion is he decided to throw the police department under the bus rather than try to explain the probable cause requirements to a generally hostile audience.” Satisfying, in this sentence, refers to providing an explanation that the public would accept.

Since a very similar explanation was provided in the now-closed thread, and failed to satisfy many readers, including you, I speculate that the explanation you proffer , given by the SA, would also not have satisfied the public.

[Mosier]

@Bricker

How do you know what Zimmerman’s voice sounds like?

Zimmerman made the 911 call. We hear his voice for 5ish minutes talking to the 911 operator prior to shouts for help.

Furthermore, at least two experts on voice analysis say its not Zimmerman shouting for help.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

Satisfying the public is exactly what I meant when I said: “So my speculative opinion is he decided to throw the police department under the bus rather than try to explain the probable cause requirements to a generally hostile audience.” Satisfying, in this sentence, refers to providing an explanation that the public would accept.

But the prosecution office did not avoid the subject of probable cause. They rushed right in head first.

Lynne Bumpus-Hooper, a spokesman for Wolfinger, said the state attorney never spoke with Lee on the night of the shooting. Instead Sanford police consulted that night with Kelly Jo Hines, the prosecutor on call, Bumpus-Hooper said. She declined to say what was discussed.

“Police officers can make an arrest at virtually any dadgum point they feel they have enough probable cause to make an arrest,” Bumpus-Hooper said. “They do not need our permission and they do not seek our permission.”

Prosecutor denies interfering in florida shooting case

Why do you persist in saying that they were trying to dodge this issue, when it’s obvious they weren’t? Your speculation makes no sense.

[monstro]

Has there ever been a case like this where screams are intentionally recorded to determine their similarity to another set of screams?

I’m curious how this will play out.

[JoelUpchurch]

Well the bond hearing is scheduled for 9AM tomorrow morning. From what I read, Angela Corey may need to present more evidence if she wants Zimmerman to be denied bond.
Orlando Sentinel April 19th

Because the charge Zimmerman faces carries a possible life sentence, there is a third standard the state could argue, known as “proof evident, presumption great.”

It’s a higher standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the burden necessary for a criminal conviction.

“It’s not an absolute certainty, but it’s just short of that,” Fussell said.

Meeting that standard would require strong evidence. According to Lyle Mazin of Mazin Law, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey would have to reveal more specific details of the state’s case against Zimmerman than have been made public.

That could include “videos, photos, witnesses’ statements, confessions or any other admissible evidence the state has,” Mazin said.

[Magiver]

@monstro

Has there ever been a case like this where screams are intentionally recorded to determine their similarity to another set of screams?

I’m curious how this will play out.

I caught something on a forensics show that talked about the psuedo-science of stuff like this. It was scary what an “expert” was allowed to present in court. The program was even questioning fingerprints. But that had something to do with how they recorded various points on a print so I assume that involved partial prints.

count me among those who are interested.

[Bricker]

@Mosier

Zimmerman made the 911 call. We hear his voice for 5ish minutes talking to the 911 operator prior to shouts for help.

Furthermore, at least two experts on voice analysis say its not Zimmerman shouting for help.

Yes. I should have asked, “How do you know what Zimmerman’s screaming sounds like?”

In my experience, the screaming voice bears very little resemblance to the speaking voice, no matter who you are. So the mere fact that to your ear, the screaming voice doesn’t sound like Zimmerman’s speaking voice should not, in my view, allow you to conclude much of anything.

Now, the experts… if the experts were unanimous, I would certainly be persuaded.

But my understanding of the accepted science is that similar voice exemplars are necessary.

Apologies for the PDF, but on page 91 it says:

Audio forensic examination of recorded dialog may lead to a legal dispute over the identity of one or more of the conversa- tion 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 eye- witnesses 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. 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 critical- ly to the recording of the unknown talker and identifies specific phrases that are distinc- tive and relatively noise-free. The examiner then arranges a recording session with the sus- pect 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.

These experts have said they don’t need to do this. Has their method been tested with other recorded screams? So far as I can tell, the software used (Easy Voice Biometrics) literally just began shipping last month. Does it, or the method, have any kind of track record or peer review?

If the experts are divided on the accuracy of this process, why are you accepting these two?

[Bricker]

@monstro

Has there ever been a case like this where screams are intentionally recorded to determine their similarity to another set of screams?

I’m curious how this will play out.

A court case? Not that I can find.

A study? Not that I can find either, but I’m not as confident about my research skills in this arena.

[Bricker]

The intersection of science and the law is interesting.

When DNA testing was in its infancy, there was a period when scientists knew they could reliably match biological samples to people to a vanishingly small error rate. And lawyers - defense lawyers, mostly - were arguing that the results should not be heard in court, because they were unreliable.

There are two different tests used in the United States judicial world to govern the admissibility of new scientific tests, methods, or techniques. In the federal system and many states, the Daubert test reigns. Based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), it’s a relatively lenient standard that grants the trial judge a fair degree of latitude in admitting evidence. Basically, if “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise…” in other words, the judge can permit an expert to testify about his theory, period.

There is a more restrictive standard, and Florida uses it: the Frye standard, based on Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). This standard requires:

[ol]
[li]The trial judge must determine whether the expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact at issue (same as Daubert)[/li][li]The trial judge must decide whether the expert’s testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”[/li]
[li]The trial judge must determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present opinion testimony on the subject at issue [/li][li]The judge may then allow the expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise, and then it is up to the jury to determine the credibility of the expert’s opinion, which it may either accept or reject.[/li][/ol]

From Ramirez v. State, 651 So. 2d 1164 (Fl. 1995).

So the key difference: Frye requires that the science to have reached a stage of general acceptance in its field — basically, that it not be novel or controversial. Daubert merely requires that an expert can be found and qualified to explain it.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Bricker

A court case? Not that I can find.

A study? Not that I can find either, but I’m not as confident about my research skills in this arena.

There has already been one expert that said that Owen analysis has no scientific basis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/06/voice-forensics-experts-cast-doubt-on-orlando-sentinel-analysis-of-trayvon-martin-911-tape/

Also there is some indication that Owens owns tha company that produces Easy Voice Biometrics.

Golly, the Easy Voice Biometrics software has only been available since March 7. And the webpage that it is sold on is registered to:
Registrant:
Owen Forensic Services, LLC
Administrative Contact:
Owen, Thomas
Owen Forensic Services, LLC

Owens is quoting himself as an expert. I’d be interested if he will be willing to repeat his testimony under oath.

When I did a frequency analysis of the screams it appeared to be two people screaming, but I don’t claim to be an expert. If both Zimmerman and Martin are screaming, then both sets of parents could be quite honestly be identifying their own sons on the recording.

BTW, does anybody else actually hear the words ‘help’ on the recording? I listened to it several times and I can’t discern any actual words in the screaming. The witnesses say they can hear the words ‘help’. I wonder if too much is getting lost in the cell phone compression algorithms.

[BigT]

@Bricker

So the key difference: Frye requires that the science to have reached a stage of general acceptance in its field — basically, that it not be novel or controversial. Daubert merely requires that an expert can be found and qualified to explain it.

This seems to contradict how trials are supposed to work, honestly. Having the judge decide whether the evidence is convincing seems to be giving the judge too much power. The other system is better, as it allows the jury to decide if the science is compelling, just like they would for any other evidence.

I mean, it’s not as if the other side can’t produce an expert that argues that the other expert is wrong, right? The whole “dueling facts” is what our justice system appears to be based on.

[PatriotX]

@you_with_the_face

Serino claims he was “overruled”, as though it was more like the first. Not a recommendation but a mandate. But that could have been an untruth or exaggeration.

Did Serino claim this somewhere?
I would love to be able to link to this if he did so I could use it.

@you_with_the_face

Furthermore, if it truly is crystal clear that there was insufficient basis for arresting Zimmerman based on the available evidence and the SYG law (as Magiver and others seem to believe), I’m seriously wondering why Wolfinger et al. wouldn’t have defended themselves with a legal argument instead of shifting blame to the police department.

Were there statements that AFTER the PD completed their investigation they did not have enough to arrest Zimmerman?

I know that the SPD issued a statement about why they didn’t arrest Z in February.
In that statement they use the phrase “at the time” twice to qualify the idea of “insufficient evidence” to arrest Zimmerman.

Have they said something similar about the state of evidence at the completion of their investigation?

[Magiver]

@BigT

This seems to contradict how trials are supposed to work, honestly. Having the judge decide whether the evidence is convincing seems to be giving the judge too much power. The other system is better, as it allows the jury to decide if the science is compelling, just like they would for any other evidence.

I mean, it’s not as if the other side can’t produce an expert that argues that the other expert is wrong, right? The whole “dueling facts” is what our justice system appears to be based on.

No, the judge has an obligation to screen pseudoscience from ever seeing the light of day. Bricker can explain it better but this is going to be challenged in discovery before the jury hears any of it. It’s not up to a group of 12 people to sort out science from opinion.

Just from reading what JoelUpchurch posted above this is DOA. Newly introduced software using the unpublished review of the the owner as a source of validity lacks any kind of peer review.

[JoelUpchurch]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5FSvKVSQ06

Or go directly to the picture here:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

The text say that this picture was taken the night of the shooting by one of the neighbors at the scene.

[Heart_of_Dorkness]

A question about the article linked above:

[QUOTE=ABC News]

The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the scuffle that night, but did hear it. The person recalled seeing Martin’s prostrate body on the wet grass and said the gunpowder burns on Martin’s gray hoodie were clearly visible.

[/QUOTE]
[Emphasis mine]

That’s just an incorrect word choice by the writer, right? If Martin was found lying face down (prostrate), that would presumably mean the gunpowder burns were on his back. That’s not at all correct, is it?

[Magiver]

@you_with_the_face

Furthermore, if it truly is crystal clear that there was insufficient basis for arresting Zimmerman based on the available evidence and the SYG law (as Magiver and others seem to believe), I’m seriously wondering why Wolfinger et al. wouldn’t have defended themselves with a legal argument instead of shifting blame to the police department. Rightly or wrongly, their failure to do that creates the picture that there *isn’t *a legal argument adequate enough to support the state’s non-action towards Zimmerman. I creates the perception that politics and backroom dealing were in play long before Corey got a hold of this case.

whoa there, I have not made any statements intimating that it is crystal clear there was insufficient evidence for arresting Zimmerman. I’ve simply pointed out the legal aspects of the case and even at that it has been on the periphery of the conversation. If you read my earliest entries to the earlier thread you would see my concerns regarding Zimmerman. I have questioned what has changed now that they have arrested him. Either new evidence has been considered or he should have been arrested before. Under the FOIA we are entitled (eventually) to a full disclosure of why he was and was not arrested.

[Magiver]

@Heart_of_Dorkness

A question about the article linked above:

[Emphasis mine]

That’s just an incorrect word choice by the writer, right? If Martin was found lying face down (prostrate), that would presumably mean the gunpowder burns were on his back. That’s not at all correct, is it?

depends where the gun was stowed. If it was in his waistband and Martin was on his chest then he would have been a poorly aimed shot from the back with the bullet traveling up and out the front.

If Z kept it in a shoulder harness then I imagine a struggle ensued. All conjecture on my part but where he kept the gun plays a part in where Martin was shot.