Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep. If they're gonna hinge their case on this, then it's case closed. No one that actually heard it that night said it sound like a grown man. They all said it sounded like a young man. Plus, two audio experts said it definitely wasn't Zimmerman. One audio expert even put his 28 year reputation on the line.

Yeah I saw that, damn it's lucky they got that on tape then to analyze because the guy in the video seems to say the reverse. Although stuff has changed a lot in this case, that's something you would expect to hold up.

Expert: Zimmerman whispered 'punks' before shooting Trayvon Martin

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

Punks is what I heard and there's no way it was coons. That CNN clip where the guy was isolating it and the host was saying "yeah it could be coons!" made me cringe.

I think that's still an important line though because he sounds pissed that "they always get away" which would kind of point to him continuing the pursuit or confronting the kid.
 
The two 'experts' from the 911 tape came on Lawrence O'Donnell's show and he asked the two what they thought Zimmerman said on that tape. He didn't lead them but merely asked what they believed they heard at that key moment (He didn't say either of the two words up for contention) but only 1 of them said he thought it was 'coons' the other didn't study it and decided to give no comment.
Ok so their is some disagreement on that one.

Bam, just like I said. You guys who heard coons need to get your ears cleaned. Oh and that lawyer is stupid, he said "these fucking assholes always get away" and he muttered "fucking punks."
Another one says otherwise so we dont know.
 
Huh?You sure you are not talking about the 911 tape with the yelling?

Either way he shows is agenda that night.

Guys, read the link. It has that exact same analyst "Owen" who heard it was punks and he was one of the two experts that said its not Zimmerman that yelled for help.
 
I'd like to see that gif.

33371_o.gif


Unlikely, but hey.
 
I always thought he said punks. There was air blowing over the mic (likely his breath) at the moment he said it, making a deeper sound over the word.

It's not terribly relevant, other than that him saying "coons" would have confirmed him as an unabashed racist.
 
These "experts" say whatever the fuck the media wants them to, or the media spins it how they want.

Just look at the expert who says it's definitely, yes indisputable and certain it's not Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 call.

They expect at least a 90% positive match for it to be Zimmerman, they had a 48% match. So there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that it is Zimmerman yelling for help. These guys should just STFU with this nonsense, this goes for both sides of the fence.
 
These "experts" say whatever the fuck the media wants them to, or the media spins it how they want.

Just look at the expert who says it's definitely, yes indisputable and certain it's not Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 call.

They expect at least a 90% positive match for it to be Zimmerman, they had a 48% match. So there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that it is Zimmerman yelling for help. These guys should just STFU with this nonsense, this goes for both sides of the fence.
Sorry but you have not idea what you are talking about.

Its not a 50/50 change.
 
These "experts" say whatever the fuck the media wants them to, or the media spins it how they want.

Just look at the expert who says it's definitely, yes indisputable and certain it's not Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 call.

They expect at least a 90% positive match for it to be Zimmerman, they had a 48% match. So there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that it is Zimmerman yelling for help. These guys should just STFU with this nonsense, this goes for both sides of the fence.

LOL





Really?
 
It's not terribly relevant, other than that him saying "coons" would have confirmed him as an unabashed racist.

I remember someone saying it was important because it would be easier to get the Feds involved if they could show it was a hate crime or racially motivated or something.

That said, it's obviously punks.
 
Sorry but you have not idea what you are talking about.

Its not 50/50 change.

lol, he's saying it's 50/50 chance because one is dead and the other is alive. And no ced, you are wrong. They aren't saying what they want because the media wants it. If you think this, then that expert would've said coons, not punks. Because the media would be blasting Zimmerman more if the word was coons.
 
These "experts" say whatever the fuck the media wants them to, or the media spins it how they want.

Just look at the expert who says it's definitely, yes indisputable and certain it's not Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 call.

They expect at least a 90% positive match for it to be Zimmerman, they had a 48% match. So there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that it is Zimmerman yelling for help. These guys should just STFU with this nonsense, this goes for both sides of the fence.

The media has been shameless in this. Fucking disgusting.
Finding these so-called experts looking for their moment of fame...
Doctoring tapes...

Shameless.
 
I don't think I've seen one conservative GAF member post in this thread that didn't have an expected perspective on this case. I wonder if there's some sort of correlation to be made.
 
These "experts" say whatever the fuck the media wants them to, or the media spins it how they want.

Just look at the expert who says it's definitely, yes indisputable and certain it's not Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 call.

They expect at least a 90% positive match for it to be Zimmerman, they had a 48% match. So there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that it is Zimmerman yelling for help. These guys should just STFU with this nonsense, this goes for both sides of the fence.
Good idea. Let's start with you.
Tom Owen, chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence—also told the Sentinel he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.

Owen used Easy Voice Biometrics software to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams, and it was a 48 percent match—well short of the 90 percent needed for a positive match, he said.

On CNN, Primeau said he's 95 percent sure the screams heard on the tape are not Zimmerman's.
 
These "experts" say whatever the fuck the media wants them to, or the media spins it how they want.

Just look at the expert who says it's definitely, yes indisputable and certain it's not Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 call.

They expect at least a 90% positive match for it to be Zimmerman, they had a 48% match. So there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that it is Zimmerman yelling for help. These guys should just STFU with this nonsense, this goes for both sides of the fence.

And the other expert.. who didn't rely on technology...? Thats used to testify in court...

You missed that part.. or..?
 
I probably missed the discussion on it, or just don't understand.

So someone explain to me what the hell this means then:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

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. 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.

I understood this to mean that for the voice to be Zimmerman, they expect at least a 90% match. They got a 48% suggesting it is not Zimmerman. However, doesn't this leave a huge uncertainty if it was a 48% match on his voice, possibly due to the quality of the recording? If I had results like that I would keep my mouth shut.
 
Huh?You sure you are not talking about the 911 tape with the yelling?

Either way he shows is agenda that night.

yes, I'm sure. I'll never find the links in this long thread, but yea...2 different "experts" said that he said "coons". Either way, I assume the Feds will figure it out.


I probably missed the discussion on it, or just don't understand.

So someone explain to me what the hell this means then:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty



I understood this to mean that for the voice to be Zimmerman, they expect at least a 90% match. They got a 48% suggesting it is not Zimmerman. However, doesn't this leave a huge uncertainty if it was a 48% match on his voice, possibly due to the quality of the recording? If I had results like that I would keep my mouth shut.
I don't think anyone here can answer your question. I guess what he'd need is an audio sample of Trayvon as well.
 
yes, I'm sure. I'll never find the links in this long thread, but yea...2 different "experts" said that he said "coons". Either way, I assume the Feds will figure it out.



I don't think anyone here can answer your question. I guess what he'd need is an audio sample of Trayvon as well.

From what I understand he's in contact with the family to possibly get a sample of Trayvon's voice if available.



I probably missed the discussion on it, or just don't understand.

So someone explain to me what the hell this means then:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty



I understood this to mean that for the voice to be Zimmerman, they expect at least a 90% match. They got a 48% suggesting it is not Zimmerman. However, doesn't this leave a huge uncertainty if it was a 48% match on his voice, possibly due to the quality of the recording? If I had results like that I would keep my mouth shut.

The metrics of any voice are bound to get a reasonable percentage, as it is a human voice. In the field of voice identification, 48% is a certainty within scientific reason that the voice being measured is not the voice it's being compared to. The various nuances, cadences and other voice indicators at 48% don't match up, with 48% likely being as I said before just the fact that it is indeed a human voice.
 
Do you really think the government or some other unknown entity just records every conversation people have on their cell phones every day?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOt1wEDy0SI

Actually...

After he left the NSA, Binney suggested a system for monitoring people’s communications according to how closely they are connected to an initial target. The further away from the target—say you’re just an acquaintance of a friend of the target—the less the surveillance. But the agency rejected the idea, and, given the massive new storage facility in Utah, Binney suspects that it now simply collects everything. “The whole idea was, how do you manage 20 terabytes of intercept a minute?” he says. “The way we proposed was to distinguish between things you want and things you don’t want.” Instead, he adds, “they’re storing everything they gather.” And the agency is gathering as much as it can.

Not that this has any relevance here.
 
Can you really accurately compare the sound of a scream to a person's normal resting voice and get an accurate match ever? It would seem like those two vocal actions are too drastically different. I know when I'm yelling or singing really loud, I sound nothing like my normal talking voice.
 
Not at all relevant. That belongs in a government conspiracy discussion.

Have you ever heard of audio being provided of a random phone call between two people?

The NSA wouldn't provide a 1080p video of the actual shooting if they had one. I'm just saying there is a significant chance the call was recorded by someone.
 
These "experts" say whatever the fuck the media wants them to, or the media spins it how they want.

Just look at the expert who says it's definitely, yes indisputable and certain it's not Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 call.

They expect at least a 90% positive match for it to be Zimmerman, they had a 48% match. So there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that it is Zimmerman yelling for help. These guys should just STFU with this nonsense, this goes for both sides of the fence.

That's not what it means.

What it means is that when they compared known samples of Zimmerman's voice with the screams on the 911 tape, they did not find a correlation to suggest the screams belonged to zimmerman

Your voice patterns in any sample should be 90% similar to any other sample of your voice. Anything less between two samples suggests they probably belong to two different persons.

In this case, one of the samples belonged to Zimmerman. The other sample, the screams on the 911 tape, are not at least a 90% match with Zimmerman. That suggests they belong to someone else.
 
Can you really accurately compare the sound of a scream to a person's normal resting voice and get an accurate match ever? It would seem like those two vocal actions are too drastically different. I know when I'm yelling or singing really loud, I sound nothing like my normal talking voice.

Yes. A voice is almost as unique as a fingerprint. It's been used to track terrorists across the world and verify bin laden tapes for authenticity.
 
That's not what it means.

What it means is that when they compared known samples of Zimmerman's voice with the screams on the 911 tape, they did not find a correlation to suggest the screams belonged to zimmerman

Your voice patterns in any sample should be 90% similar to any other sample of your voice. Anything less between two samples suggests they probably belong to two different persons.

In this case, one of the samples belonged to Zimmerman. The other sample, the screams on the 911 tape, are not at least a 90% match with Zimmerman. That suggests they belong to someone else.

I guess someone here could answer the question. Kudos.
 
Using these methods, can a valid comparison be made between screams/yells and a normal speaking voice? Haven't seen that addressed anywhere.
 
It's kind of sad that the family doesn't have any recording of Trayvon's voice.

Using these methods, can a valid comparison be made between screams/yells and a normal speaking voice? Haven't seen that addressed anywhere.

Well, Zimmerman is still alive, so it'd be easy to make him yell through a phone, hell, even the same phone the 911 caller used.
 
It's kind of sad that the family doesn't have any recording of Trayvon's voice.

Surely someone out there that had a connection to him has some kind of old voicemail recording he left or something. Or maybe even his own phone's voicemail. That stuff probably isn't accessible to the experts in the mainstream media though.
 
Surely someone out there that had a connection to him has some kind of old voicemail recording he left or something. Or maybe even his own phone's voicemail. That stuff probably isn't accessible to the experts in the mainstream media though.

Eh, just give the Murdoch empire time to hack into them via brute force.
;)
 
It's kind of sad that the family doesn't have any recording of Trayvon's voice.



Well, Zimmerman is still alive, so it'd be easy to make him yell through a phone, hell, even the same phone the 911 caller used.

It seems when used in a trial this is essentially what they need. To match a voice, they have a person repeat the same words as those spoken by the person they're trying to identify, and they do it multiple times. Came across this interesting piece:

www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/3/03733/45115
 
It seems when used in a trial this is essentially what they need. To match a voice, they have a person repeat the same words as those spoken by the person they're trying to identify, and they do it multiple times. Came across this interesting piece:

www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/3/03733/45115

Also interesting is that Tom Owen has a stake in the software (for sale for a nice low everyday $5,000 price tag!). It's no wonder he was so eager to make his expert opinion on this very high profile case known before he had the actual data he would really need to give an actual informed opinion on whose voice it was. Tom Owen is trying to sell software.

The other guy I pretty much toss out as any kind of credible expert when he said:

"I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau told the newspaper. "That's a young man screaming."

He says this without a sample of Martin's voice. He doesn't know what Martin's voice sounds like to make that analysis.

It might very well be Trayvon screaming, but I'm skeptical of the 2 experts. Tom Owen in particular considering the very recent release of the software and his connection the to company. That was advertising.
 
Also interesting is that Tom Owen has a stake in the software (for sale for a nice low everyday $5,000 price tag!). It's no wonder he was so eager to make his expert opinion on this very high profile case known before he had the actual data he would really need to give an actual informed opinion on whose voice it was. Tom Owen is trying to sell software.

The other guy I pretty much toss out as any kind of credible expert when he said:



He says this without a sample of Martin's voice. He doesn't know what Martin's voice sounds like to make that analysis.

It might very well be Trayvon screaming, but I'm skeptical of the 2 experts. Tom Owen in particular considering the very recent release of the software and his connection the to company. That was advertising.

I agree with your tag, you are an idiot. The guy has 28 years of experience, i'm sure he can tell a young man and an adult's voice.

And what exactly does him having a stake in the software has anything to do with this? He's not forcing you to buy it and not everyone is rushing out to buy a $5,000 software.
 
These "experts" say whatever the fuck the media wants them to, or the media spins it how they want.

Just look at the expert who says it's definitely, yes indisputable and certain it's not Zimmerman yelling for help on the 911 call.

They expect at least a 90% positive match for it to be Zimmerman, they had a 48% match. So there is pretty much a 50/50 chance that it is Zimmerman yelling for help. These guys should just STFU with this nonsense, this goes for both sides of the fence.

hahah I just lost a bet. Damn.
 
I agree with your tag, you are an idiot. The guy has 28 years of experience, i'm sure he can tell a young man and an adult's voice.

Really? He had access to Trayvon's voice sample none of us have heard?

So it's okay to be skeptical about enhanced video and the enhanced 911 calls from Zimmerman, but not of this guy who says he enhanced voice samples from the internet and concluded it had to be a young mans voice?

I skeptical of everything around this case, but just pointing at that these experts might also have agendas of their own.
 
He has 28 years of EXPERIENCE, he can tell a difference between a young man and an ADULT, how hard is that to understand?
 
He has 28 years of EXPERIENCE, he can tell a difference between a young man and an ADULT, how hard is that to understand?

I just said, I'm skeptical of his intentions.

If they went through the work and got Zimmerman screaming, and at least attempted to get a sample of audio from Martin I'd trust their opinion more. He didn't have enough to make such a certain opinion of who it was.
 
I just said, I'm skeptical of his intentions.

If they went through the work and got Zimmerman screaming, and at least attempted to get a sample of audio from Martin I'd trust their opinion more. He didn't have enough to make such a certain opinion of who it was.

It's not needed, they compared it with Zimmerman's 911 call as well and came to this conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom