In article , dump-on-
says...

On 4/1/12 9:47 AM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote:

In , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?


This is good practice for white racists like you, Herring. If Zimmerman
is indicted, tried and convicted, you'll be well-practiced to claim he
was "railroaded." If the dead black kid had been the shooter, you'd be
down in Sanford, offering to buy the rope for a lynching.

Let's hope the prosecution has more integrity than NBC.

On 4/1/2012 9:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/1/12 9:47 AM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote:

In , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?


This is good practice for white racists like you, Herring. If Zimmerman
is indicted, tried and convicted, you'll be well-practiced to claim he
was "railroaded." If the dead black kid had been the shooter, you'd be
down in Sanford, offering to buy the rope for a lynching.


How much did your bosom buddy Sharpton rake in on his last visit to
Sanford. He's quite the fund raising opportunist. Too bad none of it
will go to the family.

--
http://tinyurl.com/75bq9db

On 01/04/2012 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 4/1/12 9:47 AM, Happy John wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote:

In , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?


This is good practice for white racists like you, Herring. If Zimmerman
is indicted, tried and convicted, you'll be well-practiced to claim he
was "railroaded." If the dead black kid had been the shooter, you'd be
down in Sanford, offering to buy the rope for a lynching.

Actually, isn't Zimmerman spanish?

Now we all know the answer if the rolls were reversed and it was a black
who killed a spanish.


--
Liberal-socialism is a great idea so long as the credit is good and
other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those that pay
for it leave, they can all share having nothing.

On 4/1/12 2:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote:

In , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out
an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to
discriminate between two people.

What percentage of match is Zimmerman?

No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read
the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that
would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I
read the article).

You're joking, right?

Herring is just another right-wing moron.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out
an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to
discriminate between two people.

What percentage of match is Zimmerman?

No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read
the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that
would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I
read the article).

You're joking, right?

Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'.

Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:35:25 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out
an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to
discriminate between two people.

What percentage of match is Zimmerman?

No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read
the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that
would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I
read the article).

You're joking, right?

Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'.

Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him.

OMFG, with that logic, I'm sure you believe that a 60% chance of rain
means we didn't get 40% of what we could have.

This might explain your logic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

I'm surprised one of your intellectual prowess would have to resort to YouTube. Please, explain how
you interpret the comments. I am definitely not one who can't admit an error!

On 4/1/2012 2:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote:

In , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out
an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to
discriminate between two people.

What percentage of match is Zimmerman?

No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read
the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that
would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I
read the article).

You're joking, right?

He makes it up as he goes along....

On 4/1/2012 10:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, wrote:

In , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

Did Fox tell you to say that?

Did you ask Chris Matthews that, or did you have to lick the dribble
from his leg first?

On 4/1/2012 9:48 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , dump-on-
says...

From the Orlando Sentinel:

Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on
911 recording, 2 experts say
5:38 p.m. EST, March 31, 2012|

By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel



As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about
self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help
on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot?

A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to
answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel.

His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair
emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice
identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted
by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same
conclusion.

Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the
one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a
different story.

'Scientific certainty'

On a rainy night in late February, a woman called 911 to report someone
crying out for help in her gated Sanford community, Retreat at Twin Lakes.

Though several of her neighbors eventually called authorities, she
phoned early enough for dispatchers to hear the panicked cries and the
gunshot that took Trayvon Martin's life.

George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, shot Trayvon, an
unarmed 17-year-old, during a one-on-one confrontation Feb. 26.

Before the shot, one of them can be heard screaming for help.

Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the
New York Public Library's Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded
Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis ? a computerized
process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match.

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.

Forensic voice identification is not a new or novel concept; in fact, a
recent U.S. Department of Justice committee report notes that federal
interest in the technology "has a history of nearly 70 years."

In the post 9-11 world, Owen says, voice identification is "the main
biometric tool" used to track international criminals, as well as
terrorists.

"These people don't leave fingerprints, but they do still need to talk
to one another," he says.

But, but FOX tells the righties to not believe all of the facts.

You have no room to stand here. You have made up more facts here than
Sharpton..

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:03:59 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:39:35 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:40:10 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:54:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:47:42 -0400, Happy John
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:36:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , dump-on-
says...


Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Isn't 48% well beyond reasonable doubt?

In a court of law, it may well be. We aren't talking about picking out
an individual from the entire US population. We're only trying to
discriminate between two people.

What percentage of match is Zimmerman?

No, the comparison is between *one* person. Only Zimmerman's voice could be analyzed. The way I read
the article, there is only a 48% probability the voice is Zimmerman's, as opposed to the 90%+ that
would have been expected. That would imply a 52% probability the voice *is* Zimmerman's (the way I
read the article).

You're joking, right?

Well, OK, so I left out a 'not'.

Harry is the genius around here. Just ask him.

OMFG, with that logic, I'm sure you believe that a 60% chance of rain
means we didn't get 40% of what we could have.

This might explain your logic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

snerk