Voice analysis seems to exclude Zimmerman as the voice crying for help

[Malcolm Wright]

Good point. I did a search.

I'm surprised you actually posted this thread...the guy is a charlatan. While I'm not surprised the MFM bought into it, they're gullible, and seemingly proud of it, I expected better of DA's membership. And based on your well though out post on another thread, (though still clearly biased), I would have assumed you'd exercise due diligence before extolling the virtues of this self professed expert.

I could be smarmy at this point, and tell you to search for the article I'm basing this reply on...but where's the fun in that?

I doubt you'll actually click the link...I do really believe you're too biased on this issue to consider other viewpoints, but for the benefit of others:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...s-touting.html

Too biased on this issue to consider other view points?
What has given you grounds to believe that, precisely?

And why even consider being smarmy and not posting the link? Its not like I refused to post the link: I posted it, and THEN it went dead. So I only reacted to the fact you actually had the lack of class to post a one-liner complaining that dead links don't make an argument. If we end up pointing the dick-head finger over all of this, its pretty clear who it will point to first.

So keep it classy and we'll get along just fine. Walking into the discussions saying your opponent is too biased to listen to you, and that you're only posting links for the benefit of others makes you sound aggro and insecure. Reach those conclusions AFTER debating with me, not before... Unless those conclusions are just too comfortable for you: more so than an actual exchange.

M

[DngrMse]

Too biased on this issue to consider other view points?
What has given you grounds to believe that, precisely?

Your other post...the very long one on the issue of GZ/TM? You were making references, though you didn't include links, to material that was already dated, and proven wrong. The information was out there...you chose to ignore it. You're biased.

And why even consider being smarmy and not posting the link? Its not like I refused to post the link: I posted it, and THEN it went dead. So I only reacted to the fact you actually had the lack of class to post a one-liner complaining that dead links don't make an argument. If we end up pointing the dick-head finger over all of this, its pretty clear who it will point to first.

In what universe do you think that makes any sense whatsoever?

So keep it classy and we'll get along just fine. Walking into the discussions saying your opponent is too biased to listen to you, and that you're only posting links for the benefit of others makes you sound aggro and insecure. Reach those conclusions AFTER debating with me, not before... Unless those conclusions are just too comfortable for you: more so than an actual exchange.

M

Ummm. What?

[Šñøü†ê®]

I WAS JUST WATCHING THAT WEIRD FREAK ON MSNBC AND THEY HAD A NY TIMES REPORTED A MR. BLOW COME ON AND STATE THAT ACCORDING TO THE PARENTS OF TREVOR, THERE IS NO AUDIO OF TREVOR'S VOICE TO COMPARE THE 911 RECORDING WITH. THAT IS VERY STRANGE IN THIS DIGITAL DAY AND AGE! The only recorded voice might be the voicemail greeting on his cell phone. R U KIDDIN MEH!

[Malcolm Wright]

Your other post...the very long one on the issue of GZ/TM? You were making references, though you didn't include links, to material that was already dated, and proven wrong. The information was out there...you chose to ignore it. You're biased.

Right so I'm omniscient, obviously had ALL the information at my finger tips, and CHOSE to ignore it? Hence bias?
In what way does that remotely make sense? Unless you're holding me to some God like standard (which I suppose could be vaguely flattering), you're full of shit.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, we're here to debate so if you have issues with elements of that post, just point them out and judge me by how I react to your corrections.

Or is it just more fun and less demanding to write me off? I mean there would be a pattern of laziness here, considering you balked rudely at a dead link, obviously considering an internet search was too much effort for you. Contrast your approach with Lulu's who did her search, and brought back two working links with a friendly snipe that my link 'sucked'. Just contribute to the discussion on that level and we'll get along fine. I don't care how much we end up disagreeing on the case - there is good practice and poor practice when it comes to debate, and you're rating below zero on this thread.

M

[Šñøü†ê®]

IS THIS THE CURRENT TREVOR THREAD? TELLER STARTED A NUMBER OF TREVOR THREADS AS SOME SORT OF EFFORT TO MAKE A STATEMENT AGAINST GUN OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE OR SOMETHING! WHICH IS STRANGE BECAUSE TELLER SUPPORTS PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKS BASED ON DELUSIONAL PERCEPTIONS AND OUTRIGHT LIES!

[Malcolm Wright]

IS THIS THE CURRENT TREVOR THREAD? TELLER STARTED A NUMBER OF TREVOR THREADS AS SOME SORT OF EFFORT TO MAKE A STATEMENT AGAINST GUN OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE OR SOMETHING! WHICH IS STRANGE BECAUSE TELLER SUPPORTS PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKS BASED ON DELUSIONAL PERCEPTIONS AND OUTRIGHT LIES!

What's up with the all-caps?

M

[Šñøü†ê®]

I FIND IT ANNOYS optimus!

Now, Malcolm, you probably did not hear yet but there is apparently NO AUDIO of Trevor. In my opinion, Jesse Jackson's legal team instructed the parents to say that and they most likely removed most of the evidence. That way the 911 recording will be the thing that each side uses their "experts" which will give opposing views of course! But there has to be a recording out there...somewhere!

[DngrMse]

Right so I'm omniscient, obviously had ALL the information at my finger tips, and CHOSE to ignore it? Hence bias?

I'm not omniscient, but somehow I managed to find the numerous news articles that poked fatal holes in your post. Before you even put it up.

In what way does that remotely make sense? Unless you're holding me to some God like standard (which I suppose could be vaguely flattering), you're full of shit.

Again, due diligence. Your willingness to ignore reality in order to advance your argument is what makes you biased. There is nothing god like in doing homework...something that you clearly didn't even attempt. And you find this flattering?

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, we're here to debate so if you have issues with elements of that post, just point them out and judge me by how I react to your corrections.

Or is it just more fun and less demanding to write me off? I mean there would be a pattern of laziness here, considering you balked rudely at a dead link, obviously considering an internet search was too much effort for you. Contrast your approach with Lulu's who did her search, and brought back two working links with a friendly snipe that my link 'sucked'. Just contribute to the discussion on that level and we'll get along fine. I don't care how much we end up disagreeing on the case - there is good practice and poor practice when it comes to debate, and you're rating below zero on this thread.

M

I did. You choose not to address my critiques. Engage in a little 'good practice', as you put it, and defend your expert.

[Malcolm Wright]

I'm not omniscient, but somehow I managed to find the numerous news articles that poked fatal holes in your post. Before you even put it up.

Good for you! All I ask is that you point them out to me so I can respond. But apparently maybe you have already done so - according to the rest of your message?

Again, due diligence. Your willingness to ignore reality in order to advance your argument is what makes you biased. There is nothing god like in doing homework...something that you clearly didn't even attempt. And you find this flattering?

Well any unbiased observer would look at that OP and see that I did a lot of homework - many links and a fairly comprehensive overview of character and events. Doing homework doesn't mean you'll get everything right which is why I invited folks to disagree so we could discuss. No need to be a dick - which, I think by now you have understood is my main message to you at this stage.

I did. You choose not to address my critiques. Engage in a little 'good practice', as you put it, and defend your expert.

Great, so I missed your post in that thread. Once again, my fallible human nature earns me your attitude. Meh... we can't all be personable I suppose.

I'll go see if I can find the post you made in that thread, to address your critiques. And you didn't even have to ask me nicely...

M

[Malcolm Wright]

DngrMse, I just searched that thread and found zero posts by you.
Would you care to point out where you voiced your critiques?
And if it was not in the thread itself, how did you expect me to find them?

Since you find fault with that post, I would have expected you to post them in that thread... it is after all the OP of the thread.
Am I crazy to expect that? Or are you at least somewhat unreasonable to expect me to go hunting the entire board for where you chose to comment on my thread?

M

[DngrMse]

DngrMse, I just searched that thread and found zero posts by you.
Would you care to point out where you voiced your critiques?
And if it was not in the thread itself, how did you expect me to find them?

Since you find fault with that post, I would have expected you to post them in that thread... it is after all the OP of the thread.
Am I crazy to expect that? Or are you at least somewhat unreasonable to expect me to go hunting the entire board for where you chose to comment on my thread?

M

What part of that biased screed would you most like me to respond to?

[Malcolm Wright]

What part of that biased screed would you most like me to respond to?

Are you admitting that contrary to your claim that you presented critiques that I ignored, you actually never posted in the thread?

Take your pick - the entire post, obviously, is up for debate. You have the liberty of choice! Go nuts.

M

[DngrMse]

Are you admitting that contrary to your claim that you presented critiques that I ignored, you actually never posted in the thread?

Take your pick - the entire post, obviously, is up for debate. You have the liberty of choice! Go nuts.

M

I never claimed I posted in your previous thread...first off. Second, are you going to defend the expert you championed in this thread, or not?

[Malcolm Wright]

I never claimed I posted in your previous thread...first off. Second, are you going to defend the expert you championed in this thread, or not?

Ok, I misunderstood you. You complained about how biased you found that post, right? When I told you all you had to do was point out how it was biased, you said you had, and I had ignored you... But maybe you were talking about this thread when you said that?

Sure - I have a few words to say about the expert.
But first off I'll stop you in your tracks - I'm not championing him. That may be something you do, but I don't. You might find that everything about your attitude shows you to be far more biased than I am so be careful how you word things.

The two experts were touted by media, and I passed on the information, concluding that it is somewhat damning for Zimmerman. Thomas Owens is presented as somewhat of an authority on his website, but that's no surprise. However unless the claim is false that he has provided expert witness testimony in 35 states... he certainly can't be considered a rookie.

I read your article. If your reference to me dodging your critique was about not having responded to it - maybe learn to be a little patient. I only read it this morning, and I'm not at your beck and call to answer exactly when you want me to, under penalty of being considered biased and given the rude attitude...

That article is well written and sensible, until it indulges in some fanciful mock scenarios of what the trial would be like with the expert witness in question involved. That pulled the entire level down several notches. The web site is unknown to me and presents like a simple blog, but I won't hold that against it.

I was already aware of the criteria set up for comparative voice analysis on the Board's web site, and as the writer of your article points out, Owens probably wrote those criteria himself. I can't tell you why today Owens feels he can pronounce himself with such certainty on the match he made with the 911 tape. What I can do is tell you that I don't give much credence to the notion that Owens lowered his standards for publicity for his new software. On the contrary, the most logical assumption we can make without asking the man is that he is confident enough in his new software that it could perform a reliable match despite the less than ideal nature of the comparison being made. Unless you believe that he was willing to run the risk of the entire nation remembering him and his software as the ones that completely ridiculed themselves by making an early wrong call on whose voice is on the 911 tape, I don't see where that allegation can hold.

If the claims in the article you linked to hold water, someone is going to confront Owens with them and we'll then hear how he defends himself against them - its not my job to do that: I'm not an audio expert, and he is not my 'champion'.

M

[Malcolm Wright]

Some further details:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/02/ju...ing/index.html

Current chairman of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, Gregg Stutchman, confirms the skills of Owens and specifically mentions that the normal criteria for a good match are not quite as applicable to the software Owens used. This article mentions specifically that generally a minimum of 10 identical words in both recordings are needed to make a match, but Stutchman implies the software bypasses this requirement somehow.

However we're now hearing that the Sentinel was a bit sloppy: Owens, it seems, actually claimed 60% or above could indicate a match, not 90%.

The article also mentions that although these techniques often contribute to court cases, the courts and the scientific community have mixed feelings about their reliability.

We'll see how things develop. I'm hoping a recording of Martin's voice will be made available soon - as a point of comparison, it will certainly shed more light than is shining now.

M.

[jwreck]

That's exactly what I'm saying. For them to claim something definitive now is just glory hounding.

[Malcolm Wright]

That's exactly what I'm saying. For them to claim something definitive now is just glory hounding.

Well they're still declaring they are quite sure of their conclusions that it wasn't Zimmerman.
I agree that the experts are probably happy to be involved in such a prominent case, but I don't think they're stupid enough to lose sight of the fact that concluding that strongly can leave them discredited if they get it wrong.

All in all this remains a fairly damning development for Zimmerman's claim.
The one benefit of the doubt that I will extend to Zimmerman is that he may truly believe he was calling for help. With the pain of his busted nose and the struggle to fight off Martin, I'm willing to believe a desire for help was at least screaming in his mind. If he was told afterwards that people heard cries for help, he may have naturally felt they were his.

M.

[Malcolm Wright]

The thing that messes with my head is that the scenario I favor would give both Martin and Zimmerman rise to be shouting for help. but whenever I try to visualize them both shouting for help, a keen sense of absurdity comes over me. How long can two people afraid of each other both cry for help before realizing they're both scared of each other and that maybe that means they don't need to be...

But then again, if the weapon was already in play, they'd keep fighting and screaming for help regardless because letting up still carries the risk the other will seize the weapon and shoot.

Its a difficult situation to contemplate.

M

[jwreck]

The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed they cannot say who was screaming

From your link in post #55.

[Malcolm Wright]

From your link in post #55.

Yup - saw that.
Even if they were one hundred percent sure it was not Zimmerman, that would still be true, technically.