|
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article , dump-on-
says... Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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? |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
|
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
|
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 09:53:11 -0400, 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. Nope. Full of **** as usual, Harry. In both cases I'd wait for the investigation, charging, trying, and sentencing, if appropriate. The color of either's skin has no bearing on the case, except to you liberals. You do have a good imagination though. Shame it's channeled into the sewer of your life. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
|
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
|
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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 |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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! |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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.... |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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? |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
|
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
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 |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article ,
says... On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:58:17 -0400, Happy John wrote: 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! From the OP: "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." Why don't we compare this to Martin's voice and see what that match is? Better yet, why didn't he compare the sound to Martin, at all? To me, that clearly shows bias. Since the examination didn't come up with a strong positive, why not compare the weak positives to each other? A 48% match of Zimmerman to Zimmerman is useless information. A 98% match would be damning. Since you can't prove a negative, the 52% means nothing. John won't get it, FOX didn't tell him that. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article , says...
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.... See hoosit's explanation, he's spot on. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article , says...
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? Who is Chris Matthews and why are you being such a low life? |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article , says...
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.. Cite? |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
|
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article ,
says... In article , says... A 48% match of Zimmerman to Zimmerman is useless information. A 98% match would be damning. Since you can't prove a negative, the 52% means nothing. These "experts" mean nothing until colloborated by forensic sound experts employed by the system of justice. Do you really expect anybody but the prejudiced to believe anything else? This is just more speculation, however you wrap it in "expert." Reminds me OJ and Richard Jewel. I fear this is becoming so politicized that any findings by the law will be rejected by those taking a stand, no matter how it is decided. You are exactly correct, that is the problem. There wasn't much of an investigation that usually takes place when there is a death by gunshot. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On 4/2/2012 9:52 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In , says... A 48% match of Zimmerman to Zimmerman is useless information. A 98% match would be damning. Since you can't prove a negative, the 52% means nothing. These "experts" mean nothing until colloborated by forensic sound experts employed by the system of justice. Do you really expect anybody but the prejudiced to believe anything else? This is just more speculation, however you wrap it in "expert." Reminds me OJ and Richard Jewel. I fear this is becoming so politicized that any findings by the law will be rejected by those taking a stand, no matter how it is decided. It's impossible to judge how much the media has damaged this case. both from the (potential) prosecution and defense perspective. OJ got away Casey got away Will Zimm. get away? -- http://tinyurl.com/75bq9db |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On 4/2/2012 8:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... 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? Who is Chris Matthews and why are you being such a low life? If you don't know who Matthews is (liar, snerk), you have no business discussing news organizations in the first place. He is the centerpost of one of the main three networks news agencies... |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article , says...
On 4/2/2012 8:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... 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? Who is Chris Matthews and why are you being such a low life? If you don't know who Matthews is (liar, snerk), you have no business discussing news organizations in the first place. He is the centerpost of one of the main three networks news agencies... It's not a news organization, it's FOX, entertainment. I know about Hannity and Rush, two of the biggest liars in the field. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On 4/2/12 10:40 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 4/2/2012 8:47 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... 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? Who is Chris Matthews and why are you being such a low life? If you don't know who Matthews is (liar, snerk), you have no business discussing news organizations in the first place. He is the centerpost of one of the main three networks news agencies... No, he isn't. Matthews is an author, a political observer and a commentator. He is not a newsman. He also is intellectually honest. There is no question he is a Democrat, but he also asks very tough question on representatives, candidates and spokespersons on both sides. I watch him from time to time. He's good at his job. But, to me, the best political commentator and presenter on TV since Tim Russert died is Rachel Maddow. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:58:44 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:58:17 -0400, Happy John wrote: 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! From the OP: "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." Why don't we compare this to Martin's voice and see what that match is? Better yet, why didn't he compare the sound to Martin, at all? To me, that clearly shows bias. Since the examination didn't come up with a strong positive, why not compare the weak positives to each other? A 48% match of Zimmerman to Zimmerman is useless information. A 98% match would be damning. Since you can't prove a negative, the 52% means nothing. The weak positive (48%) is what the software gave as a match to Zimmerman's voice. The analyst would have expected at least a 90% match if the voice were, in fact, Zimmerman's. The conclusion was that the weak positive proves the voice is not Zimmerman's. He didn't analyze the recording compared to Martin's voice because he didn't have a recording of Martin's voice to compare to. To me, the weak positive (48%) also leaves a weak negative (52%). I agree with your last sentence. That's why I can't understand the liberals saying this proves that Zimmerman did not call for help. It proves nothing. |
Zimmerman not the one calling for help, experts say
In article ,
says... On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 21:58:44 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:58:17 -0400, Happy John wrote: 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! From the OP: "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." Why don't we compare this to Martin's voice and see what that match is? Better yet, why didn't he compare the sound to Martin, at all? To me, that clearly shows bias. Since the examination didn't come up with a strong positive, why not compare the weak positives to each other? A 48% match of Zimmerman to Zimmerman is useless information. A 98% match would be damning. Since you can't prove a negative, the 52% means nothing. The weak positive (48%) is what the software gave as a match to Zimmerman's voice. The analyst would have expected at least a 90% match if the voice were, in fact, Zimmerman's. The conclusion was that the weak positive proves the voice is not Zimmerman's. Yeah, so someone else killed Martin even though Zimmerman admits to it, right? He didn't analyze the recording compared to Martin's voice because he didn't have a recording of Martin's voice to compare to. More ****ty investigation. To me, the weak positive (48%) also leaves a weak negative (52%). I agree with your last sentence. That's why I can't understand the liberals saying this proves that Zimmerman did not call for help. It proves nothing. Please show how the weak positive "proves" the voice is not Zimmerman's. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com