One of the key pieces of circumstantial evidence in the murder charge against George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin is a cry for help moments before the fatal shot that was recorded while a witness who heard the struggle made a 911 call to the police. Identifying the voice of the person screaming, although not conclusive, would certainly be compelling evidence that the outcry was made by the victim of the physical encounter rather than by the aggressor. The recording, in other words, could be used by the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin in self-defense, or by Zimmerman to prove he was being beaten by Martin when he shot him. So, to prove it was Martin's voice, the prosecution likely will rely on family members and friends of Trayvon Martin. The prosecution may also try to rely on forensic experts to give their opinion that it was Martin's voice. Zimmerman, by contrast, will claim it is his voice, and he also will rely on his family and friends, and maybe experts as well. And a jury, if the case ever goes to trial, will have to decide this important factual issue.
But while there is no reason why the trial judge would bar family and friends from giving their opinion as to the voice of the person screaming, as long as those persons are familiar with the person's voice, there are lots of reasons why a court should exclude forensic experts from testifying to the voice. Indeed, the media has already reported that several forensic experts have already volunteered their opinions that the voice on the tape was not Zimmerman's, and that it was Martin doing the screaming. But are these opinions reliable? Are they supported by scientific analysis? Has the methodology of these experts been subjected to review by other experts in voice analysis? Indeed, has the subject of voice identification through scientific analysis been accepted broadly by the scientific community, and by the courts?
So, for example, one of these so-called experts used a technique called "biometric voice analysis" to compare Zimmerman's voice, recorded when he was calmly speaking to police dispatchers shortly before the shooting, and the screaming voice on the 911 tape. This expert found a 48 percent match between the voices, concluding "with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman." First off, what is biometric voice analysis? Is it similar or different from voice identification through voice spectrography, commonly called a "voiceprint," which has been studied for years but which most courts have not admitted into evidence because it lacks scientific reliability and acceptability. Another so-called expert gave the media his "strong opinion" that the voice was Trayvon Martin's "without a doubt." What was the basis for this expert's opinion? "The tone of the voice is a giveaway," he said. "That's a young man's voice." This from an expert?
Here's the concern. What is the basis for these conclusions? Are they based on scientific analysis? Or mumbo-jumbo? What is the scientific basis for biometric voice analysis? Would any court allow an expert to give his own subjective opinion as to the "tone" of a voice, and that the speaker is a young man? Or give an opinion about the gender or race of a speaker simply by hearing the voice? Are these examples of reliable scientific study and analysis, or junk science?
There are simply too many instances of prosecutors using fraudulent and erroneous scientific evidence to get convictions, sometimes convictions of innocent people, to allow so-called experts to step forward with suspect credentials and opinions. The fact is that juries typically believe experts more than any other witness. The expert is usually viewed by a jury with an aura of special reliability and trustworthiness. However, the records of contemporary criminal trials are replete with instances of "junk science" finding its way into courtroom through the testimony of so-called experts that contained false, exaggerated, and erroneous conclusions that lacked any scientific validity. Several of these experts have become notorious, and their pretentious opinions masking fraudulent and reckless quackery. These experts have testified to blatantly unscientific opinions: astronomical estimates of hair comparisons without any scientific basis, "unique" characteristics of feet without any scientific basis, weapons that "indeed and without doubt" caused certain wounds, opinions that an accidental fire was intentionally set, and other instances of faked fingerprints, faked autopsies, and faked breathalyzer readings.
Some of the opinions by voice experts raise similar concerns. For example, whereas fingerprint and DNA evidence have unique and distinguishable characteristics, there does not appear to be any scientific basis for claiming, as one of the above voice experts did, that each individual's voice is unique. And anyway, there are so many marked differences that may occur among various groups of talkers that giving an opinion "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" is blatantly misleading. Even using terms like "probable" or "inconclusive" would be problematic, but a much more accurate opinion. Also, comparing a speaker's voice in a calm state and an emotional state, as one of the voice experts did, makes any informed comparison even more hazardous. Finally, published studies of voice identification under experimental conditions show very high rates of error. Indeed, a report by the National Academy of Sciences on forensic voice identification concluded that the scientific basis for making reliable voice identifications is weak. The FBI, as a result of the report, apparently does not use forensic voice analysis for courtroom evidence, although as with polygraph evidence, it continues to use it for investigative purposes.
If George Zimmerman is brought to trial, the voice of the person screaming probably will be a major issue. There likely will be contradictory proof of whose voice it is. Such proof can readily be admitted from persons who are familiar with that person's voice. But such proof should not be admitted based on the opinion of a forensics expert. It's just not reliable.
Made me feel soo sorry for Travoyne.
What about the poor guy who was doing the screaming for 45 seconds.
Do you think your voice tone would change if someone was beating and smashing you to a bloody pulp..
Case closed.
8-)
1. Zimmerman was not indicted but still arrested for 2nd degree murder. This is because the US Supreme Court has never held that the 5th amendment requirement, that serious crimes can only be prosecuted after a Grand Jury indictment, applies to the states.
2. Instead the prosecutor filed an Information, also called Affidavit of Probable Cause under Florida statute 923.03. It was accepted by Judge Mark E Herr on April 12, leading to Zimmerman's arrest.
3. The statute requires that somebody swears, in front of the prosecutor, to the truth of a set of facts that, if true, would establish the guilt of the accused of the crime (murder in the second degree). The two people who so swore were investigators, T.C. O'Steen and Dale Gilbreath.
4. At the bail hearing on April 20, Gilbreath admitted that he didn't know whether or not some of the items he had sworn to be true were in fact true, in particular that Zimmerman had ignored the dispatcher's request that he return to his vehicle and that he confronted Martin rather than the other way around.
5. If they so desired, Zimmerman's attorneys could ask the court to dismiss the case based on the faulty affidavit.
Zimmerman claims are only became necessary when he discovered that his "burglary suspect" was just a neighborhood kid.
Ooops, doesn't cut it, and self defense doesn't apply when you just shot an innocent unarmed kid minding his business walking down the sidewalk in his own neighborhood.
Who thinks it is OK to get chased and shot by a Mexican in a "Thriller" jacket because he doenst like the way you look?
WOW. You're mean. Profiling is what got the boy executed in the first place.
GZ isn't Mexican and you know this because you've been told for the past several weeks.
You might want to touch base with reality a bit more often--no critical thinker is going to be swayed by your inductive reasoning or biased framing.
Actions demonstrate intent and state-of-mind better than any story concocted after the fact. A well known trial rule and VERY good admissible piece of evidence. The prosecutor will destroy Zimmerman's self defense argument with this if he is stupid enough not to work out a plea bargain first.
That's why *flight = guilt* in most trials. lots of people convicted on that alone.
in this case, *pursuit = no fear* and initiation of the confrontation.
Joel you don't live in reality if you think that there are ANY lawful circumstances that the end result is: homeowner assc. member accosts and murders a neighborhood kid walking home from the quickie mart. Not even in FL is that the law pal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgR7gCxXQYg
I really believe that is a real possibility. That someone let him go through their home to cut him off. I'm not stating that they thought or knew that Trayvon would end up dead.
He clearly calls the executed boy a "kid."
Rather than staying by the mailboxes to wait for the cops, he went after that "@$&hole". What a skunk. I can't wait for thi trial.
Then why wasn't it clear to lead investigator Dale Gilbreath?
Trevon was the only party that night who had the right to stand their ground.
Many people have been perfectly clear that they support the rule of law and it has nothing to do personally with the descendant of African slaves who's Great Grandfather was Afro-Peruvian and the same person who was a mentor of African American kids who made sure that his wife and kids were protected from Big Boi the deadly pit-bull, and who chose to be business partners with an African American and who volunteered much time to help spread awareness and demand justice for Sherman Ware.
I agree wholeheartedly, and on these very threads, folks have even bragged about celebrating this innocent, unarmed child's death by dancing on his grave. There use to be a time when a person wouldn't dare speak evil of the dead, and definitely showed more respect..
However, the confessed murderer will be convicted. This case started on a very shakey foundation of lies and deception, which continues. Even O'Mara finally admitted today that among other things, all this hatred and racial attacks directed at the executed boy and his family by the confessed murderer's supporters, is only making it harder for him to try this case and receive his desired results. He looked pretty pee-od when he said it.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041
An innocent unarmed man was minding his own business, and then was chased down and shot in the street by a neighbor. There is no world in which that can be contrived as legal or justified.
1. he armed himself in advance.
2. he got out of the car. (A very aggressive act to a pedestrian.)
3. he followed Martin.
4. he followed faster( = chased) Martin when he ran.
5. he verbally accosted Martin.
here the evidence get blurry... but
To believe your version, an innocent kid minding his own business had to just snap on this "neighborhood watch" guy for no reason. Z, a guy with a prior history of violence toward a police officer, a guy with a history of trying to play cop. That is not a reasonable conclusion.
Caution: This site is not for liberals who hate guns and prefer to live in ignorance of facts and Florida law.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/22/update-11-trayvon-martin-shooting-final-deconstruction-of-benjamin-crumps-media-evidence/
Notice the grieving parents at the link below, looking forward to their payday.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/09/trayvon-martin-shooting-exploitation-tour-arrives-in-london/
Wonder what happened to Tracy's girlfriend? Do you think Crump can teach DeeDee how to speak English and remember the correct version of what happened?
Does anyone remember how soon she called to report this after getting off the phone with Martin?
Remember Crump and the cries for an arrest? Floridians know that an arrest was necessary for Crump, Sharpton, et al to file a civil suit. He even said he did not want a conviction.
It has always been about the money. There NEVER was any grounds for an arrest for an arrest and still isn't but Rick Scott decided to risk political suicide.
So now Scheming Team Skittles has itself in a box. They got their arrest AND a charge for second degree murder, much more than they bargained for.
Ready for a riot? Yup, it's that time again. Perpetuating racial division is big business.
No liberals are allowed on that website
i don't want to be followed by a Mexican with a gun either.
and as a gun owner and CCW holder, i know you cannot pursue someone, initiate a confrontation and kill an unarmed man because you want to "check him out". There is no 2nd amendment right to chase people in the street. Zimmerman is going to get 6-9 well earned years behind bars. if you are going to confront someone with a gun, you better be dam sure you are in the right. Zimmerman shot an innocent, unarmed man and no amount of excuses or "see what happenz waz" are going to hide that FACT.
People like you and the judge's son need to tell the public, once and for all, why you are all gathered together around the dead body of this executed boy like buzzards----and why is is so important for persons like yourself to have him dead. What do you get out of it---him being dead and executed in such a heinous manner?
Quite dramatic with the buzzard stuff.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/22/update-11-trayvon-martin-shooting-final-deconstruction-of-benjamin-crumps-media-evidence/
The person who should have been afraid (proved my his murder) and had a right to stand his ground (because he was being followed by a suspicious person) was Trevon.
If Trevon had a Glock instead of some Skittles he would have been WELL within his rights to stand his ground and plug Z.
Oh Jordan, really need to lay off that stuff. And I suppose you really know what happened.(smh)