Voice recognition experts who spoke to The Daily Caller questioned the methodology and conclusions of a voice-identification analysis published by the Orlando Sentinel on March 31.
**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.
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.”
One voice authentication expert whose work is commercial in nature told TheDC that screaming, stress, and a recording’s audio quality can “wreak havoc” on voice biometric software and its ability to interpret data.
And speaking of Owen’s findings, another industry insider said that “a legitimate biometrics expert would likely refute the contentions” and suggests that these were “incendiary publicity plays.”
As you might imagine, there is (sadly) no dearth of baby-dangling incidents with which to rebut the claim that it’s never been tested in the law. But of course somewhere there was a first such case, where a jury applied the general concept of recklessness to the conduct and reached a guilty verdict, and the appellate court agreed that this was sufficient evidence to sustain that verdict. And it’s not hard, because in general adults have a duty of care to infants, and any behavior that risks an infant breaches that duty.
So, you ask, why couldn’t this be such a seminal case?
The answer is that when the legislature authorizes a particular behavior, such as carrying a concealed weapon, and someone engages in that behavior in accordance with the legislature’s authorization, it’s difficult to claim that the behavior is per se reckless. We’d need to point to specific things that made it reckless; we can’t say there was a general duty of care for Zimmerman to not confront a suspicious person. As long as he acted legally, we would have to lay out, with specificity, what was reckless about his actions.
Courts have found all sorts of behavior reckless when it endangers infants. Courts have NOT generally found behavior reckless when walking up and talking to people.
So before you can put Zimmerman’s conduct into the reckless category, you have to know what he did.
The same witness said, explicitly, that he couldn’t tell which man was on top. As in:
Anderson Cooper: “You say the shooter was on top?”
Witness: “I can’t really say.”
And the same witness said that he didn’t see the moment when Zimmerman got up.
“I can’t say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer.”
So it is pretty disingenuous to say that the witness said “Zimmerman was on top, beating Martin”.
In the real world, the one that matters in court, dispatchers are not cops and have no authority to dictate the actions of others.
I truly don’t understand your argument beyond an emotional one. Unless a police officer answers and gives a direct lawful order it doesn’t matter what was said.
They analysis these experts did doesn’t even pass a basic smell test. People don’t sound they same talking and screaming. All they showed was that they couldn’t match Zimmerman’s voice to the scream. The two explanations for that is (1) It’s not Zimmerman screaming or (2) it is Zimmerman screaming and the test isn’t sophisticated enough to make the match. (2) seems the much more probable explanation. I don’t put any stock into their report unless they (1) match Martin’s voice to the scream, or (2) conduct a rigorous investigation.
What they are saying is that Owen is claiming isn’t even possible at the current state of the art. That goes from Wrong to “Not Even Wrong”
My personal opinion after carefully listening to the 911 and running frequency analysis on the screams is that there are two people screaming or one person that got kicked in the balls really hard.
These guys were screaming for 45 seconds before the shot and in some cases it was so loud it sounds like they were practically on the patio. Really you should download the wave file and form your own opinion.
It will be mentioned by the prosecution over and over.
This is NOT the first time Georgie called the police to report suspicious teens. He calls about 40 times a month. It’s part of his history and his background. He has a recognized relationship with the Sanford Police and dispatchers. He’s probably been told not to engage before and followed the advice. This time he didn’t and someone’s dead.
This is a key point in this case whether you agree or not.
Bricker’s legal opinion (and I agree) is that it has no legal relevance to the case. But whether it does or not, it should be reported accurately. As in “The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman that they didn’t need him to follow Martin.”.
Still nitpicking huh Terr? Like it or not, this point will be raised in the trial, and its up to the jury to decide whether its relevant, not you or Bricker. So stop telling telling us it is irrelevant. What are you expecting, that noone will ever speak of it again? Its a fact of the case. Deal with it.
Bricker also said that he believes that it will come up in trial. So how you do you interpret that as him saying that it has no legal relevance? Doesn’t every piece of evidence introduced have legal relevance? Maybe to you it is irrelevant, but not to this trial it isn’t. Not unless the jury decides that it is.
Ok, but on what grounds would it be disallowed? How would they prevent that information coming up unless they don’t allow Zimmerman’s 911 recording. Its right in the middle of that. Hard to say that his 911 call is irrelevant.
As part of all the recordings of 911 calls, it probably will come up. If the judge finds that the “we don’t need you to do that” mention is not relevant to the trial, he will instruct the jury to ignore that.
