While those claims have been disputed, there are at least some experts who do not think the voice belonged to Zimmerman.
I agree the use of pictures was shady.
Voice recognition is not infallible. It is about as accurate as a polygraph when a voice is disguised by normal means. I'll go into more detail following this article:
Article on Voice Analysis Technology in this case
Two experts in the field of forensic voice identification, Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, were hired by the Orlando Sentinel to review George Zimmerman’s call to police along with the 911 calls right before the shooting.
They both decided the voice screaming for help on the 911 calls was not George Zimmerman, and each expert arrived at that conclusion by independent methods.
Tom Owen is mentioned first in the article. He’s described as a forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services, LLC.
Let’s take a closer look at the process he used.
Quote:
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.
That raises some concerns. Tom Owen apparently compared Zimmerman’s normal speaking voice on a dispatch call, with high-pitched, terrified screaming that was recorded in the background of later 911 calls.
I was pretty stunned that he could be so sure. After all, the computer program is looking for similarities in the vocal patterns. How many can it possibly find when pattern A is completely normal, laid back speech and pattern B is hysterical screaming?
I wanted to investigate this a bit further and looked into downloading the software Tom Owen used.
But this proved to be extremely difficult, a license for the software costs nearly $5,000.
That’s a pretty hefty price to pay to test this software out…
After a few more minutes of research, I found out that the Easy Voice Biometrics web domain is actually owned by Tom Owen himself.
So what Tom Owen is actually doing here, is using his own home-grown software to attempt to determine the similarities in speech markers between two radically different types of voice patterns and claiming that it is accurate “beyond scientific certainty.”
Beyond scientific certainty is a pretty strong statement.
There doesn’t seem to be any disclosure in the Orlando Sentinel article that Tom Owen owns EasyVoiceBiometrics.com, nor any that he was using his own software package to do the analysis.
I’m not sure whether the Orlando Sentinel author realizes it, but that could easily be construed as a conflict of interest, particularly when the software is currently being sold for $5,000 per license. There’s an extremely transparent profit motive for Tom Owen to promote his product in any way that he can, especially at that price.
Since Tom Owen has staked his reputation on this, and has said point-blank that this software is so accurate that he knows “with reasonable scientific certainty” that it’s not Zimmerman on the 911 calls, the software must at least be extremely thoroughly tested, right?
I emailed Mr. Owen to double-check.
Doesn’t sound reassuring, does it?
It also says, on Easy Voice Biometric’s own web site, that the software is less than a month old.
This is especially strange, because the Orlando Sentinel article says:
Quote:
As recently as January, Owen used the same technology to identify accused murderer Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.
How could Owen have been using the same technology in that case when the web site says the software was only released on March 7th, 2012
Since Owen referred me to TracerTek.com, I checked out that site as well.
TracerTek.com and EasyVoiceBiometrics.com appear to be using the same web site template, just with different information filled in.
It appears Jeff Klinedinst is involved with both. He is listed as the VP of Marketing on TracerTek and he did the YouTube demo videos for Easy Voice Biometrics.
Here’s a demo video Jeff put together for Easy Voice Biometrics.
The software appears to work fine if someone alters their voice slightly, or if there is light music playing in the background.
But there certainly isn’t anything in the demos about Easy Voice Biometrics offering “reasonable scientific certainty” when someone is screaming in panic on the background of a 911 call.
So where exactly is this “scientific certainty” coming from?
The second expert, Ed Primeau, doesn’t “believe” in Biometric Analysis, but doesn’t say why.
Quote:
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.
Ed simply listened to the recordings. Then he decided the noises were Trayvon Martin because of the “tone of the voice” while reading Mother Jones.
Quote:
“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.”
Nevermind that there was an eyewitness to the fight who clearly states it was George Zimmerman yelling out for help. Or that Zimmerman is cited in the original police report as saying he was yelling for help. Or that the yells much more accurately portray someone who is screaming during an assault, rather than someone begging for their life at gunpoint.
Both Primeau and Owen report that they are credentialed by the American College Forensic Examiners Institute.
Sadly, it turns out there is an entire suite of these “American Forensic Board” sites, on almost any topic you can think of, which all seem to be ran by the same person, a gentleman named Dr. O’Block who claims to have nearly a dozen degrees himself.
Once again, most of these sites use the same basic template and only change cursory details, making it difficult to gauge how legitimate the boards are, if at all.
Tom Owen also lists things like this:
Quote:
Instructor “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007
As prestigious as the “New York Institute for Forensic Audio” sounds, there is no such brick and mortar institute. It is actually a “division” of Owen Investigations, LLC. Tom Owen is basically claiming he was an instructor at his own unaccredited university.
I’m sure we’ll hear more about this in the upcoming weeks, since both of these “experts” have sparked a lot of controversy with their statements and placed their reputations on the line.
Now, when I was in High School I happened to study biometrics and much of what was true then is still true now:
Here are the problems. Zimmerman was yelling for help, he was getting beaten up and he was panicked and scared. Those facts alone can make the voice be disguised and come back a false-negative. If you throw in physical blows to the face, belly, or groin that can really throw it off. Also a hit to the throat will almost guarantee a failure to match. The vocal cords are the most important part of the body for this software, so a hit to that spot will make ones voice much less recognizable by the software.
Also, the screams were background noise and there was a lot of interference, making one more obstacle when they tried to isolate just the screams. There may have been leftover interferance not audible to the human ear and that can throw the results off a bit too. In short, all those things made me feel certain that if they used the software it wouldn't match even before the release of these results. By the way, a 48% match is very high, it's not scientifically conclusive, but if you take two random people off the street and compare there voices with voice recpgnition software, more often you'd be less then a 20% match, so really under the circumstances a 48% match is quite impressive. I take that 48% match, combined with all the reasons cited above, to be proof that there is a high probability that it is Zimmermans voice, and that is corroborated by John's testimony.
Oh yeah, I forgot one more thing. Cell phones compress the voice signal so much that much information is lost. Meaning comparing Zimmermans voice when he was on a cell phone can be yet one more factor that can throw off the results of a a voice analysis.
I understand there is some dispute over the voices. I assume everything you brought up will come out in the trial if it's relevant- and I suspect much of it is.
My bigger point, and I know this seems like backpedaling, but even if Zimmerman was calling for help... he was following someone around in the middle of the night very sketchily. I believe he actually chased him at one point. If Martin attacked him, I think I might call that self defense- especially based on the stand your ground law.
I understand there is some dispute over the voices. I assume everything you brought up will come out in the trial if it's relevant- and I suspect much of it is.
My bigger point, and I know this seems like backpedaling, but even if Zimmerman was calling for help... he was following someone around in the middle of the night very sketchily. I believe he actually chased him at one point. If Martin attacked him, I think I might call that self defense- especially based on the stand your ground law.
Put simply there are certain things that increase the likelihood of a failure to match in a voice analysis.
In a test where 2000 people were given a sentence to read normally, and then to read a second time, disguising their voice, the technology was found to have a high level of accuracy, comparable to a polygraph, but it was not infallible.
But like a polygraph, there are a number of ways to beat the software and to through off the results. I cited quite a list of those things, all of which were potentially happening to George Zimmerman.
Anyway, the most conclusive evidence is that Zimmerman was a 48% match. That is unusually high for two random people off the street. More likely the eye-witness was telling the truth and the lack of a match is explained away by the long list of circumstances I cited before.
Anyway, the press was negligent in saying that it was not George Zimmerman. Forensically to conclusively prove it's George Zimmerman they'd prefer around a 90% match, but there was just too much going on.
On youtube, prior to the results even coming out, I stated that it would be negligent to just compare it to Zimmerman's voice because after hearing what happened and about his injuries I already felt a high level of confidence that they would be unable to forensically prove it was George Zimmerman's voice. Had they compared it to Trayvon's voice too, it would not have matched either
Anyway, 48% is an unusually high percentage for similarity between the voices of two random people, and the yelling voice was a 48% match for George Zimmerman. Knowing that there is a huge list of things that can throw off the results of the test, I hope you will accept that the media was after ratings, and the sensationalized that voice analysis, without explaining the technology's limitations.
I don't know about you, but in my mind that 48% is verification that the eye-witness John was telling the truth.
I understand there is some dispute over the voices. I assume everything you brought up will come out in the trial if it's relevant- and I suspect much of it is.
My bigger point, and I know this seems like backpedaling, but even if Zimmerman was calling for help... he was following someone around in the middle of the night very sketchily. I believe he actually chased him at one point. If Martin attacked him, I think I might call that self defense- especially based on the stand your ground law.
Put simply there are certain things that increase the likelihood of a failure to match in a voice analysis.
In a test where 2000 people were given a sentence to read normally, and then to read a second time, disguising their voice, the technology was found to have a high level of accuracy, comparable to a polygraph, but it was not infallible.
But like a polygraph, there are a number of ways to beat the software and to through off the results. I cited quite a list of those things, all of which were potentially happening to George Zimmerman.
Anyway, the most conclusive evidence is that Zimmerman was a 48% match. That is unusually high for two random people off the street. More likely the eye-witness was telling the truth and the lack of a match is explained away by the long list of circumstances I cited before.
Anyway, the press was negligent in saying that it was not George Zimmerman. Forensically to conclusively prove it's George Zimmerman they'd prefer around a 90% match, but there was just too much going on.
On youtube, prior to the results even coming out, I stated that it would be negligent to just compare it to Zimmerman's voice because after hearing what happened and about his injuries I already felt a high level of confidence that they would be unable to forensically prove it was George Zimmerman's voice. Had they compared it to Trayvon's voice too, it would not have matched either
Anyway, 48% is an unusually high percentage for similarity between the voices of two random people, and the yelling voice was a 48% match for George Zimmerman. Knowing that there is a huge list of things that can throw off the results of the test, I hope you will accept that the media was after ratings, and the sensationalized that voice analysis, without explaining the technology's limitations.
I don't know about you, but in my mind that 48% is verification that the eye-witness John was telling the truth.
That is definitely a possibility.
However, picking a fight and losing doesn't mean you get to shoot someone. Not and claim self defense anyway.
I don't think I'd take a 48% match as proof positive (either way), myself. Our recording's unlikely to be high-fidelity in the first place - telephones are a lossy medium for reproducing sound, cellular telephones are a lossy medium for transmitting sound point-to-point, the microphone inside a cellular telephone is hardly of high quality, and a scream is probably outside its comfort zone. (Not great for short, sharp, loud sounds like laughter, either.) Not to mention that during a physical struggle, the phone would hardly be ideally placed for picking up vocalizations from either assailant or victim.
I understand there is some dispute over the voices. I assume everything you brought up will come out in the trial if it's relevant- and I suspect much of it is.
My bigger point, and I know this seems like backpedaling, but even if Zimmerman was calling for help... he was following someone around in the middle of the night very sketchily. I believe he actually chased him at one point. If Martin attacked him, I think I might call that self defense- especially based on the stand your ground law.
Yeah, the media s still making that mistake, so I don't blame you for it. You see, the liberal media still says that Zimmerman ignored the dispatchers 'orders' and kept chasing Trayvon
This is a map of where this all occurred:
Point C is where George Zimmerman was parked. When he got out to maintain line-of-sight with Trayvon, he headed towards Point E, passing through a dark area and losing sight of Trayvon. Apparently Trayvon was heading down the dark back area towards point D while Zimmerman stopped around Point E and spent 90 seconds finishing up his phone call with the dispatcher. Emphasis on Zimmerman stopped!
After Zimmerman hung up, the facts get sketchy. Zimmerman claims he was heading back to his SUV, back through that darker area, and Trayvon attacked him, and in the struggle or something they somehow ended up getting the short distance to point F, which is where Trayvon died, which was right outside the witness John's house (Pont G).
We can't know everything that happened between Zimmerman hanging up and when John first spotted them, but we do know where Trayvon was when he got away from Zimmerman, and he was heading home, and we know he had a 90 second head start at least, so why didn't Trayyvon Martin make it home (at point D) that small distance in that 90 seconds?
The most probable explanation for all these facts based on where Trayvon was shot in relation to where Zimmerman was parked and where he finished his 911 call, is that Trayvon was heading home when his girlfriend called, and he talked to her, and he built up the nerve to go back and confront George Zimmerman.
Teenage boys will do incredibly stupid things if they think that they can impress a girl. That's human nature, at least for teenage boys, regardless of race..
The prosecutor has her work cut out for her if she truly believes Zimmerman is guilty of anything, the facts just aren't there and a lot of what George Zimmerman and the eye-witness said seems very credible.
If, as the evidence suggests, Zimmerman did stop following Trayvon, and if Trayvon truly came back and assaulted Zimmerman, than it was justifiable homicide/self-defense. By the time John came out and saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman yelling for help, well, what would you do?
Getting out of the car was foolish to begin with, but not illegal, and prior to the fatal incident there is a 90 second timeframe where Zimmerman stopped to talk to the dispatcher, so the only reason Trayvon wouldn't have made it home is because he chose not to, because he came back to confront Zimmerman, just like Zimmerman claimed.
People have claimed that Zimmerman walked or snuck after Trayvon during that 90 seconds, but there is no proof of that theory, and honestly if he had done as the whack jobs claimed the fight would have broken out much closer to Point D, and Trayvon would not have died in the place that he did.
The only situation that would explain why they were in the spot that they were at when Trayvon was shot is if Zimmerman did stop where he claimed and Trayvon came back, just like Zimmerman claimed.
Th'other thing that's foolish is going on armed neighborhood patrols in the first place, as a member of the general public. Defense of his own home or his own vehicle would fall within his rights. Defending a random stretch of public sidewalk he didn't need to be standing on would not.
Th'other thing that's foolish is going on armed neighborhood patrols in the first place, as a member of the general public. Defense of his own home or his own vehicle would fall within his rights. Defending a random stretch of public sidewalk he didn't need to be standing on would not.
He actually wasn't on a patrol. There is a text message to back that up. A few minutes before the incident, George Zimmerman sent a text message to his sister stating that he was going to the store. He was licensed to carry a gun, and he wasn't on a patrol, so there was nothing wrong with him having his gun with him. If he left specifically with the intent to do a patrol in his capacity as a member of the neighborhood watch, then he shouldn't have had his gun with him, but fortunately for Zimmerman, he has that text message that proves he was just going to the store.
Th'other thing that's foolish is going on armed neighborhood patrols in the first place, as a member of the general public. Defense of his own home or his own vehicle would fall within his rights. Defending a random stretch of public sidewalk he didn't need to be standing on would not.
He actually wasn't on a patrol. There is a text message to back that up. A few minutes before the incident, George Zimmerman sent a text message to his sister stating that he was going to the store. He was licensed to carry a gun, and he wasn't on a patrol, so there was nothing wrong with him having his gun with him. If he left specifically with the intent to do a patrol in his capacity as a member of the neighborhood watch, then he shouldn't have had his gun with him, but fortunately for Zimmerman, he has that text message that proves he was just going to the store.
Th' appropriateness of carrying his gun on him depends on how exactly he has licensed that firearm; concealed carry or open carry would presumably be subject to the state (Florida) and municipal (Sanford) laws on the subject, with which I'm not personally familiar. Concealed carry permits are very hard to get around here, although permits for gun ownership are not particularly. Open carry is not encouraged, although I imagine that's different in Florida.
The text wouldn't seem relevant to whether or not he was "patrolling," since neighborhood watch members have no official standing of any kind, standing just beneath mall rent-a-cops in the low-er-archy of law enforcement. He could go to the store if he wanted, he's not going to get fired from the neighborhood watch job he doesn't have for violating regulations that don't exist. What he can't do is exceed the mandate of his position - observe and report suspicious activity and let the authorities handle things from there.
I understand there is some dispute over the voices. I assume everything you brought up will come out in the trial if it's relevant- and I suspect much of it is.
My bigger point, and I know this seems like backpedaling, but even if Zimmerman was calling for help... he was following someone around in the middle of the night very sketchily. I believe he actually chased him at one point. If Martin attacked him, I think I might call that self defense- especially based on the stand your ground law.
Yeah, the media s still making that mistake, so I don't blame you for it. You see, the liberal media still says that Zimmerman ignored the dispatchers 'orders' and kept chasing Trayvon
This is a map of where this all occurred:
Point C is where George Zimmerman was parked. When he got out to maintain line-of-sight with Trayvon, he headed towards Point E, passing through a dark area and losing sight of Trayvon. Apparently Trayvon was heading down the dark back area towards point D while Zimmerman stopped around Point E and spent 90 seconds finishing up his phone call with the dispatcher. Emphasis on Zimmerman stopped!
After Zimmerman hung up, the facts get sketchy. Zimmerman claims he was heading back to his SUV, back through that darker area, and Trayvon attacked him, and in the struggle or something they somehow ended up getting the short distance to point F, which is where Trayvon died, which was right outside the witness John's house (Pont G).
We can't know everything that happened between Zimmerman hanging up and when John first spotted them, but we do know where Trayvon was when he got away from Zimmerman, and he was heading home, and we know he had a 90 second head start at least, so why didn't Trayyvon Martin make it home (at point D) that small distance in that 90 seconds?
The most probable explanation for all these facts based on where Trayvon was shot in relation to where Zimmerman was parked and where he finished his 911 call, is that Trayvon was heading home when his girlfriend called, and he talked to her, and he built up the nerve to go back and confront George Zimmerman.
Teenage boys will do incredibly stupid things if they think that they can impress a girl. That's human nature, at least for teenage boys, regardless of race..
The prosecutor has her work cut out for her if she truly believes Zimmerman is guilty of anything, the facts just aren't there and a lot of what George Zimmerman and the eye-witness said seems very credible.
If, as the evidence suggests, Zimmerman did stop following Trayvon, and if Trayvon truly came back and assaulted Zimmerman, than it was justifiable homicide/self-defense. By the time John came out and saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman yelling for help, well, what would you do?
Getting out of the car was foolish to begin with, but not illegal, and prior to the fatal incident there is a 90 second timeframe where Zimmerman stopped to talk to the dispatcher, so the only reason Trayvon wouldn't have made it home is because he chose not to, because he came back to confront Zimmerman, just like Zimmerman claimed.
People have claimed that Zimmerman walked or snuck after Trayvon during that 90 seconds, but there is no proof of that theory, and honestly if he had done as the whack jobs claimed the fight would have broken out much closer to Point D, and Trayvon would not have died in the place that he did.
The only situation that would explain why they were in the spot that they were at when Trayvon was shot is if Zimmerman did stop where he claimed and Trayvon came back, just like Zimmerman claimed.
Reasons to believe Zimmerman attacked Trayvon:
- He has a history of violence
- He said he was going to go after Trayvon
- He wanted to be a cop and had an obvious viigilant complex
- I mean come the ******** on, "These ******** always get away."
Reasons to believe Trayvon attacked Zimmerman:
- The guy who would be facing a certain conviction on second degree murder if he said otherwise says he did.
There is simply no believable reason to say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman unless you're playing to latent and (mostly) unspoken fears of young black men.
Th'other thing that's foolish is going on armed neighborhood patrols in the first place, as a member of the general public. Defense of his own home or his own vehicle would fall within his rights. Defending a random stretch of public sidewalk he didn't need to be standing on would not.
He actually wasn't on a patrol. There is a text message to back that up. A few minutes before the incident, George Zimmerman sent a text message to his sister stating that he was going to the store. He was licensed to carry a gun, and he wasn't on a patrol, so there was nothing wrong with him having his gun with him. If he left specifically with the intent to do a patrol in his capacity as a member of the neighborhood watch, then he shouldn't have had his gun with him, but fortunately for Zimmerman, he has that text message that proves he was just going to the store.
Th' appropriateness of carrying his gun on him depends on how exactly he has licensed that firearm; concealed carry or open carry would presumably be subject to the state (Florida) and municipal (Sanford) laws on the subject, with which I'm not personally familiar. Concealed carry permits are very hard to get around here, although permits for gun ownership are not particularly. Open carry is not encouraged, although I imagine that's different in Florida.
The text wouldn't seem relevant to whether or not he was "patrolling," since neighborhood watch members have no official standing of any kind, standing just beneath mall rent-a-cops in the low-er-archy of law enforcement. He could go to the store if he wanted, he's not going to get fired from the neighborhood watch job he doesn't have for violating regulations that don't exist. What he can't do is exceed the mandate of his position - observe and report suspicious activity and let the authorities handle things from there.
Well, pertaining to the criminal trial it wouldn't matter. The neighborhood watch is discouraged from carrying a gun while on patrol, but it's not a crime to do so as long as he had the proper permit, which he did.
The evidence that has been released to the public thus far is insufficient for any sort of conviction, but the text is still very important. You see, once he's acquitted there could be a civil lawsuit, and if he were found to have grossly breached protocol for neighborhood watch then he could lose that case pretty easily. The text will be vital evidence in such a civil lawsuit because it proves that George Zimmerman did not leaving his house to act as Captain of the neighborhood watch.
It wasn't on an official patrol so it was perfectly appropriate for him to be carrying, since he does have a concealed weapon permit.
Anyway, technically it shouldn't make a difference that he was packing a gun as far as criminal charges go, but the text will probably be used anyway to counter any bias that might be created towards Zimmerman due to the rules normally being not to carry guns while on patrol.
- He has a history of violence
- He said he was going to go after Trayvon
- He wanted to be a cop and had an obvious viigilant complex
- I mean come the ******** on, "These ******** always get away."
Wow, you are obviously biased. I started factual evidence and you offer nothing but your speculation. Did you even bother to read the evidence before you decided to put your foot in your mouth and begin chewing?"
Vercingetorix VII
Reasons to believe Trayvon attacked Zimmerman:
- The guy who would be facing a certain conviction on second degree murder if he said otherwise says he did.
There is simply no believable reason to say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman unless you're playing to latent and (mostly) unspoken fears of young black men.
Again, I cited factual evidence that proved that Trayvon turned around and went back to confront Zimmerman, and once more all I get from you is speculation. Dd you even read my post? Also there was an eye-witness that saw Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman and Zimmerman begging for help, and I prefer not to sully the name of the dead, but Trayvon was not the innocent kid the media and race-baiters have made him out as.
You know what, I'm tired of the back and forth. I"m saving any and all opinions I got on this matter till the medical examiner files his official report.
Okay, one more, a prediction; Zimmerman does not go up for murder, pleads down to Man 1, get's minimum.
100
200
200
