One of the most venerable lawyer’s aphorisms goes something like this:
If the facts and the law are against you, attack the police.
This is almost exclusively the province of defense lawyers as it is assumed—and virtually always the case—that the prosecution has the very great advantage of having the facts and the law on its side. There should be no arrests and prosecutions otherwise. But this is not at all the case in the George Zimmerman prosecution. Not only are the law and the facts aligned against the prosecution, so are the police.
It is always the defense seeking to establish reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. In the Trayvon Martin case, it is the prosecution seeking to establish reasonable doubt about the case of the investigating police! It is difficult to explain precisely how unusual and downright strange this is. The prosecution is in the position of arguing against the police and much, if not all, of the evidence they’ve amassed, which is the universe-mandated role of the defense in any criminal case. Consider these facts presented in Update 3 on April 23 of 2012 (“Gilbreath” is Dale Gilbreath, one of the two investigators for the Special Prosecutor):
* Gilbreath admitted that he did not interview Zimmerman. [This means that everything he and his fellow investigator knew about Zimmerman’s statements came from the materials collected by the Sanford Police. He has no new evidence in that part of the case.]
* Gilbreath could not justify the use of the word “confrontation” in the affidavit and looked very evasive in avoiding it.
* Gilbreath admitted he had no idea whose voice was calling for help, and admitted that he did not speak with Martin’s mother and that he could not confirm whether anyone spoke with Martin’s father about that or whether he could identify Martin’s voice on the various tapes…
* Gilbreath admitted he had no idea who started the fight.
* Gilbreath admitted that he had no evidence that conflicted with—no evidence to prove otherwise–Zimmerman’s statement that he was walking back to his truck before being assaulted by Martin.
* Gilbreath admitted that he had no evidence that conflicted with—no evidence to prove otherwise–Zimmerman’s statement that Martin assaulted him first.
* Gilbreath admitted that Zimmerman’s injuries were consistent with his account of the attack. Amazingly, he also admitted he hadn’t read Zimmerman’s medical records from that night and that he had never requested a copy of those records.
From the moment a special prosecutor was appointed, it was pre-ordained that they and the Sanford Police would be at odds. And when, apparently from the very beginning, Angela Corey aligned herself with and collaborated with the Scheme Team, a group of race-baiting lawyers with a financial interest in the case, it was a certainty that she and the local prosecutor–Norm Wolfinger–who did not find cause to charge George Zimmerman, would be at odds.
What is remarkable is that Corey made her charging decision based on the same record and facts available to the Sanford Police and Wolfinger. We know this because at the initial bond hearing, their investigator, Gilbreath, testified that he (and this means the special prosecutor’s office) did not interview Zimmerman and clearly had no evidence beyond what was then known. In other words, he had done no real additional investigation beyond that already completed by the Sanford Police, and likely, he—and the special prosecutor–had not yet had time to read all of their investigation.
Certainly, Corey relied, probably heavily, on the unsupported and hyperbolic statements of Benjamin Crump, most specifically, his representation of the testimony of Dee Dee. Unfortunately for Corey and Crump, Dee Dee is a perjurer, and the “evidence” she provided Bernie de La Rionda (hereinafter “BDLR”), outlined in Update 11. Not only did not implicate Zimmerman in any crime, she actually supported his account. To make matters worse for the prosecution, Dee Dee, even ignoring her perjury, will be an absolutely terrible witness and will actually harm rather than help the prosecution’s case.
Consider too that The Narrative, the Scheme Team and all those supporting both have savaged the Sanford Police, calling them everything from incompetent to racist, and suggesting all manner of evil conspiracies against Trayvon Martin on their part. Few, if any, Sanford officers will be kindly disposed to the prosecution in this case. Indeed, one or two officers, perhaps former Detective, now late-shift patrol officer Christopher Serino (I explained the circumstances of his “reassignment” in Update 13) might, to one degree or another, be at least somewhat supportive of the narrative (though his own reports will contradict him), but the prosecution will still have to deal with Wolfinger who will have to testify why he did not find probable cause to charge Zimmerman with any crime.
I would not be in the least surprised if BDLR actually asks the court for permission to treat Wolfinger and the Sanford Police as hostile witnesses, which would be yet another astonishing plot twist in this second-rate Twilight Zone episode of a case.
So with Mark O’Mara requesting an evidentiary hearing on the evidence to be presented by audio experts, what are the issues about which he’ll be concerned?
There are two primary “bodies” of audio “evidence” in this case. George Zimmerman’s muttered comments during his call with the police dispatcher as he was watching Trayvon Martin, and the reports of two separate groups of “experts” in their analysis of someone screaming for help, recorded as background by the Sanford Police in at least one phone call of a potential witness. Zimmerman has testified that the voice is his, calling repeatedly for help, help that never came. Remember that the prosecution has no evidence to contradict this account.
One avenue BDLR may take is arguing that Zimmerman called Martin a “fucking coon.” Unfortunately for BDLR, as I pointed out in Update 5, this issue has been completely debunked:
The allegation was that Zimmerman—during the 911 call–called Martin a “fucking coon.” It was presented as prima facie evidence of Zimmerman’s racism. CNN used the supposedly superior technology available only to a well-funded major television network and aired a segment by reporter Gary Tuchman that confirmed that Zimmerman called Martin a “fucking coon.” As one might imagine, this did little to calm racial tensions.
In the meantime, J. Neil Schulman, using Roxio, an off-the-shelf, inexpensive program, produced an audio clip of the comment that clearly reveals the comment to be “fucking cold.” The final “d” consonant is unmistakable. To experience the difference for yourself, speak the words “cold,” and “coon.” Notice the “d,” to be audible, must be clearly voiced and percussive, while the “n” of “coon” is stopped and quiet. Take this link to hear Schulman’s audio clip.
Tuchman was, some nine days later, forced to admit—though exceedingly grudgingly—that Schulman was right. The word was “cold,” not “coon.” Zimmerman was taking the weather to task, not Martin or anyone else. Not that this might stop BDLR from trying to misrepresent the evidence. Remember, please, that any attempt to paint Zimmerman as a racist will be contradicted by the FBI’s investigation that reportedly found no evidence of such racism, quite the opposite.
The other issue is: who was screaming for help? Remember that the audio was taped over a phone and from a distance. Remember too that under the effects of adrenaline, even burly men with basso profundo voices can easily see their voices rise several octaves in pitch, making them sound like excitable little girls. I’ve seen, and heard, this on innumerable occasions. In this case, every “expert” dealing with the source material has admitted that it is of very poor quality. In addition, they had no examples of Trayvon Martin’s voice with which to compare the source material, making it practically impossible to know if the voice belonged to either man.
The Orlando Sentinel and CNN engaged Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, independent audio “experts” to try to determine who was screaming for help. I recommend you review Update 5 in its entirety, but to summarize, Primeau said:
“There’s a huge chance this is not Zimmeman’s voice. After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming.” Owen came to the same unsupported conclusion.
CNN soft-pedaled the facts, which are that Owen and Primeau did not have adequate voice samples from Zimmerman—and none at all from Martin—from which to make comparisons. In fact, Owen used proprietary software—his own which he is marketing for around $5000 a copy—and which is not accepted in court in the United States. Consider:
Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman’s. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident that two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday — meaning it’s unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.
So it’s 48% likely to be Zimmerman, but 60% is required to “feel confident.” Notice how CNN handled the fact that because they have no samples for Martin, they can’t do any comparison. They ignored it and said it’s “unlikely” it was Zimmerman. CNN saved the most important quote for last:
The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed that they cannot say who was screaming [emphasis mine].
They ‘cannot say who was screaming,’ yet CNN wrote the article in such a way as to give the impression that it was not Zimmerman. Notice that they did not say it was Martin. Perhaps Roxio would have been helpful here as well. The fact remains that without many substantial and highly specific samples, no audio examiner can deliver a reliable opinion on such things. This article by an ABC affiliate illustrates that point. And this post on Macsmind makes the same point.
The FBI’s examination of the same evidence produced the same results, with the exception that the FBI honestly reported them, as I reported in Update 7:
To put it as simply as possible, the FBI struck out. They cannot say whose voice is crying out for help. The sample provided them is of poor quality and while they don’t specifically say this, I suspect that they, just like the civilian examiners, don’t have the proper number and kind of voice samples of Zimmerman and Martin with which to make a competent comparison even if the 911 call were of sufficient quality. The FBI will be able to testify only that they don’t know who is screaming for help.
BDLR will surely want to use these expert witnesses to deliver unsupportable opinions not based on science but on “gut feelings.” Ignore the fact that Owen’s software is not accepted as reliable in US courts, these guys are experts! In other words, BDLR wants to throw up as much of a smoke screen as possible. It is he that seeks to create reasonable doubt about his own evidence, the evidence gathered and prepared by the primary investigating agency!
O’Mara will argue that the witnesses be allowed to testify only to the results obtained through reliable and accepted means: none of them can say who was screaming. He will argue that they not be allowed to testify to unsupportable opinions, which can have no other effect than to unfairly prejudice a jury against Zimmerman. He will particularly argue against allowing Owen to testify at all because his testimony is based on unproven technology not recognized as sufficiently reliable to be used in court. This is an inherently reasonable and legally well-grounded argument, which may mean little or nothing in Judge Nelson’s court.
But aren’t these men experts? Aren’t they allowed to deliver expert opinions? They are, but only when those opinions are the result of the application of scientifically accepted and recognized methods. To do otherwise in this case would be like a fingerprint examiner saying: “well, it’s true that I don’t have any actual fingerprints from the accused to compare to the latent prints found at the crime scene, but because I’ve been doing this a long time, and because I glanced at the accused’s hands when I walked past him just now–and by the way, I’m selling software about my method of how to do that–I’d stake my reputation that those are his fingerprints.” It doesn’t matter how many degrees a witness has or how long they’ve been pursuing their discipline. If they are not professionally applying the methods and technologies recognized by the courts as the standard in their discipline, they are guessing as much as the layman.
The only rational, lawful course would be to allow only one bit of testimony from these witnesses: the fact that they can’t say who was screaming. Of course, if that’s all they can say, what’s the point? This leaves Zimmerman’s account as the only, and the definitive, account of the attack. I somehow suspect Judge Nelson will be neither rational nor lawful.
Readers may also want to visit Legal Insurrection where Cornell Law Professor William A. Jacobson points out that the accepted standard is multiple similar voice exemplars.
Just One Minute also has a solid discussion of the related issues, as does Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left.
ONE ADDITIONAL ISSUE:
As the trial draws near, an issue I did my best to clarify in Update 4 continues to be raised. For some, it’s merely another smoke screen, a way to obscure the facts. Others probably don’t understand reality. I refer to another essential part of the narrative that goes something like: “Trayvon Martin never touched Zimmerman, and if he did Zimmerman deserved it because he “profiled” Martin, and besides, Zimmerman didn’t get hurt at all, and even if he did, Zimmerman wasn’t justified in using the force he did.” I wrote:
People are severely and permanently injured or beaten to death by people employing only their hands and feet each and every day…
One viciously assaulted without provocation may well be justified in drawing a knife or firearm and brandishing it to stop the assault. They need not wait until they are so seriously injured they are milliseconds from passing out to do so. If they have time, and if the assailant will not stop, they may surely use it to stop the assault. This is particularly true of female victims attacked by men.
The point is there is a great difference between someone who shoves you to the ground or strikes you a single blow and does little or nothing more and someone–or a gang–who continues to brutally attack you. The former might require nothing more than a later call to the police. The latter might require immediate action necessary to preserve life. It is always a good idea to be aware of the specific laws of your state on this and other matters.
Hollywood has done us a great disservice in this and a great many other ways. Watching movies, entire generations of Americans have romanticized violent confrontations. After watching countless battles where characters punched and kicked each other relentlessly for many minutes, they have developed the idea that they too may engage in such behavior. They fail to realize that what they are seeing is not fighting, but fight choreography, a carefully timed and filmed dance between experienced actors and stunt men and women, meticulously designed to give the impression of powerful blows given and endured. Stage blood is not real blood, the result of lacerated skin and ruptured organs and blood vessels. Reality is very different. Most fights quickly end up on the ground, in the dirt and blood. Human beings simply can’t take the kinds of repeated blows action heroes absorb and dish out without serious, immediate and long-lasting consequences.
The human body is at once amazingly resilient and terribly fragile. I have seen people take unbelievable punishment in car accidents and assaults and suffer no long-term ill effects. I have also seen people sustain single blows in assaults or minor car accidents that have crippled them, left them paralyzed, destroyed their intellects leaving them near-vegetables, or even killed them. When under brutal and continued assault, how do you tell what the likely outcome will be? Will you merely suffer painful but rapidly healing injuries, or will you be disfigured, crippled or worse?
Being struck forcibly in the face or head is a stunning, intensely painful experience. The eyes, soft tissues and bones of the face are particularly vulnerable to serious, disfiguring, even crippling damage. A blow to the nose sufficient to break it is unbelievably painful and stunning. In many cases, it directly interferes with vision and thinking, leaving a victim unable to understand what is happening to them (so much for running away) and unable to protect themself for some time.
In the same way, being struck forcefully anywhere in the head—even if the skull is not fractured–can cause short term brain damage—that’s what a concussion is—or permanent damage. Saying: “Oh, it’s only a mild concussion,” indicates a lack of understanding of medicine. Concussions can be deadly. I’ve known victims of assaults—including fellow police officers—who suffered head injuries and literally couldn’t think straight—couldn’t function normally–for days, in some cases, weeks. They were all fortunate to make full recoveries; many do not.
In the last year, one of my brightest students suffered a mild concussion in a basketball game. For the next month, it was as though her IQ suddenly dropped 20 points. She instantly went from an A+ student to a C- student, though her personality remained essentially intact. Her athletic abilities were also noticeably affected. She looked the same, but those who knew her realized her injury made her a very different, lesser, person. Fortunately, she fully recovered.
One may certainly suffer serious, permanent, even fatal damage from being struck in a wide variety of places on the body. I’ll not bother to mention them for obvious reasons. While I am a large, strong man, and while I have experience and training in a variety of martial disciplines, as well as experience in physical confrontations, I have always gone out of my way to avoid such things. Despite my abilities, I am no longer as young as I once was. I get older every day while criminals tend to always be in their teens and early 20s. And while my reflexes and abilities are still superior to a substantial portion of the population, they’re certainly not what they were in my 20s and 30′s, or even my 40′s, for that matter. I’d be a fool to try to employ only empty-handed defense against a younger attacker or attackers. I might prevail, but I would almost certainly sustain real damage in the battle. I’m no longer willing to do that unless it’s absolutely necessary to protect my life or the life of another. Violent physical confrontations are not a game, contest or a measure of testosterone.
Those interested in exploring this and similar issues in greater depth might want to review my seven part series on the rationale for gun ownership. The first article in that [recently updated] series is available here. The rest are available in the SMM firearms archive.
The facts, which the prosecution cannot dispute, are that Zimmerman suffered a broken nose and multiple injuries to his face and head, injuries seen and recorded by multiple witnesses immediately after the attack, entirely consistent with his account of the attack. There is every reason–including eye witnesses–to believe his account, and no evidence to prove otherwise. This means that Zimmerman was knocked, stunned, to the ground by an unexpected punch to his nose. He was immediately pursued and mounted by Martin, who repeatedly slammed his head into a concrete sidewalk, and repeatedly punched him.
This attack could easily have resulted in Zimmerman’s death. Being struck in the head even once can be deadly. Consider the case of Ricardo Portillo, a 46 year old volunteer soccer referee punched once in the head by a 17 year old soccer player who took offense when Portillo issued him a yellow card. Portillo collapsed shortly thereafter and died, in a coma, about a week later.
Consider that Zimmerman had his head repeatedly slammed into a sidewalk. This is more than the equivalent of being repeatedly struck in the head with a large rock, except a sidewalk is more massive, therefore arguably capable of producing greater injury. A 17 year old is more than strong enough to kill, particularly when his victim is not expecting an assault and is, as was the case with Zimmerman, roughly the same size.
Was Zimmerman in an encounter where the use of deadly force was justified? Without question. He is being prosecuted today because of the (hopefully) temporary political dynamics of Florida and the nation. That does not, however, mean we need lose track of reality.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Reblogged this on Nettles.
Mike has written a definitive must-read for anybody who follows the Zimmerman case
Reblogged this on History of the world – sans revisionism.
Another excellent post. Part of what you wrote about was what Chip and I were discussing in your last post. About how the Travonistas are relying on no one seeing the first punch, nor all those blows, and lack of DNA, etc. It’s amazing that they just don’t believe Trayvon did all that.
If I may ask, can you do an analysis of what W11, W6, and W18 said in their statements. I’ve done my own and am curious if I had missed anything. It seems that those 3 are the ones that will put George away and convict him according to the “other” side. Yes, I know who W6 is and what he said (just in case you asked). :)
TIA
Impressive as usual, Mike. But a couple of points:
While we all know George didn’t say “coons”, I also don’t believe he said “cold”. He claims the word was “punks”… and that’s what I hear too.
And regarding this: “This means that Zimmerman was knocked, stunned, to the ground by an unexpected punch to his nose. He was immediately mounted…”
I’m sure you just abbreviated that, but for any “newbies” reading, I thought it should be clarified. It’s almost certain that George did NOT fall down as soon as he was punched in the nose. It appears very likely (and he says so in the walkthrough) that after being punched, he staggered/stumbled for several yards as he was trying to get away, all the while probably “seeing stars”, and having no idea which way he was going, Only after following behind and shoving George to the ground did Trayvon finally “mount” him… some distance from where it started at the ‘T’.
Reblogged this on Captain Long Schlong Silver .
Gilbreath also testified that O’Steen interviewed Witness 8, but in the transcript from April, only BdlR asks questions. For some reason this really strikes me as odd, especially considering the APC.
BDLR interviewed DD at the home of Sybrina Fulton with Crump and his gang in attendance. DD, according to her own deposition, said that Sybrina was sitting next to her crying. Does anyone have any proof at all that DD did not have any conversations with anyone in attendance prior to the recorded deposition? We don’t even have a complete list of everyone that was there. When BDLR flew DD to Jacksonville in Aug. for another meeting of some sort, no names of those attending that meeting were ever rel;eased, and there was no recording or even transcript of what was said. If the report wasn’t in the FDLE files, the defense would have never been the wiser that the meeting ever took place.
Thanks, pinecone. Don’t know why I’m so hung up on the list, or incomplete list, of attendees and the non-existent (or yet to be released) transcripts. Maybe it’s nothing other than sloppiness?
George was only charged after Govenor Scott found out he needed the black vote to get relected . The one question I can’t wait for the state to explain away is why did one states attorney could not find reason to charge him. But another state attorney could find grounds to charge him , this is going to put all of his old case under review since the state has put his judgement in question.This could end up costing the state millions of dollars in legal reviews of his cases , great job governor Scott.
Governor Scott needs about all the help he can get, and none to be found. He started off as a rather hardline panderer, but has softened that image quite a bit light of how abysmal Florida got to work.
The Special Prosecutor wanted additional endorsements herself. Although if you checked out the murder case of Natasha Boykin she allowed a murderer to run free to cover her own jurisdictional police departments tracks. Check it out under http://www.truthseekersus.org or facebook Truth Seekers for Justice! Her own lead investigator testified at the first bond hearing about identifying stippling (gun powder particles) on Zimmerman and Martins sweatshirt solely relying on crime scene photos taken by the police FIVE WEEKS AFTER the incident but on the Natasha Boykin case he states he cannot identify the substance on the boyfriend from a crime scene photo – WHAT? Why not? because they want to hide their own corruptions and malfeasance.
Mike, once again for sharing your experience and wisdom on this miscarriage of justice.
“It is always the defense seeking to establish reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. In the Trayvon Martin case, it is the prosecution seeking to establish reasonable doubt about the case of the investigating police!”
It appeared to me that Crump took couple of leaves out off Johnny Cochrane’s book: the police conspiracy theory, “Lying has already begun” …
The prosecution seems to have a speculative scenario, and supprters of the prosecution lots of speculative scenarios, but not so much evidence.
The prosecution presents a possibility that there might be reasonable doubts on Zimmerman’s innocense …
Crump has been lying a lot, and there seems to be reasonable suspicion that he’s also been conspiring, but he gets a free pass from the media. This is so bizarre.
As for taking the page from Johnny Cochran, Cochran had it easy. All he had to do was create reasonable doubt. The burden for Corey is to overcome reasonable doubt. The state must prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt and disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The state is in the position of having to convincinly disprove Zimmerman, using evidence, and in a sense, having to disprove SPD’s conclusion. Serino’s recommentation to charge is based on a fictitious basis for finding a crime, “could have prevented it by staying in the truck.” The SPD does not apply the “could have prevented it” standard of conduct in its decisions to arrest and/or recommend charging, for reasons that ought to be obvious with a bit of reflection.
The state’s best weapon in this case is smoke and mirrors, and a hope that the jury will ignore the law, replacing it with emotion.
It’s nice to see some of the things I’ve thought about the case presented in a way that’s far better organized, written and articulated than I will ever be capable of. Thanx.
I remarked shortly after Corey charged, everything about this case is upside down. The prosecutor is arguing AGAINST the police. And all she has to make her case is Witness 8 and Sybrina.
Regarding Tom Owen, his statement about the 48 percent likelihood that the voice is George Zimmerman can best be analyzed in terms of an analogy to the game of roulette, which has very close to 48 percent chance that any spin will be either red or black. It’s as if Owen was saying “the next spin won’t be red,” and when questioned as to how he arrived at that assertion, saying “because there’s only a 48% chance that it will be red, therefore I’m sure it won’t be red. Now, I’m not saying it will be black – I’m just telling you it won’t be red.”
Of course, in the case of the 911 call, the screaming voice is one of only two people, so Owen leaves the impression that this MUST be Trayvon Martin screaming, since he has brilliantly shown that it simply CANNOT be George Zimmerman. He has offered no estimate as to what percent chance his software places on the possibility that the voice is Trayvon Martin’s. We know from hearing Trayvon’s deep voice on the 7-Eleven surveillance video that the chances of that being Trayvon’s voice are slim to none. It’s as if that roulette wheel has half of its spaces red and the other half occupied by dozens of completely unique colors, and Owen is trying to leave the impression that his method shows it is more likely the next spin will be yellow than red.
NataLIE jackson is VERY familiar with how devastating Brain injuries are (check out her website-it is one of her specialties).
.
And very classy article mr mike, as usual.
I have a few motions in limine getting experts kicked out, I may send them to the defense. And I have another trick that worked during trial where the expert was left adding up $1200 to $240 and $13, instead of their wanting to use him to add up millions. What a wonderful sight, a $50,000 expert totaling $1500 and some change. I won’t mention that one, but it is in my book :)
Anyway, here’s what I posted over at HuffPo, don’t know if it got moderated out because, well…, it is HuffPo. (I post over there to rattle the cayote cages.)
____________________
If the Judge makes the correct ruling she will exclude the experts on this issue and simply let each side put on their witnesses who say it is their respective sons screaming.
If the Judge does that then George Zimmerman will “win” on this issue because common sense dictates that “real man” Trayvon Martin would never “scream like a little girl” as many of his friends have characterized on the social pages after his death.
Moreover, there’s witness “John” and Austin Brown who also said it was the guy in red who was was on his back, being beat up, and John said Zimmerman made eye contact with him and yelled for help. Makes no sense that BOTH Zimmerman and Martin were screaming for help.
Lastly, why would Trayvon Martin, who obviously had the upper hand when he was assaulting George Zimmerman, be screaming for help. Help to do what? Continue to kick Zimmerman’s ssɐ?
Bonus Comment: If Judge Nelson allows the prosecutor’s experts, then she should also allow (and order) the FBI to testify for the defense. (If the FBI refuses to testify, then we can get in the publicized results that they could not determine who was screaming. That’s an allowed maneuver when the govt. acts all high and mighty and refuses to show up to court.)
Anyway, the FBI with all their technical prowess (especially in the fight against terrorism, and in its attempt to nail Zimmerman for a racist crime) could NOT say who was screaming on the 911 audio, but experts using smoke and mirrors, and parlor tricks (aka nifty $5K software) to say it was Trayvon Martin, oh please.
IMO Owen is not going to be used by the State. Aside from all the standard reasons for keeping him out, if he was allowed to testify, MOM West can impeach and discredit his testimony with prior statements about his software being inconclusive.
Even if Owen testified as a plain ol’ expert, telling the jury what his finely tuned ears and tubed-based macheen told him who is who, MOM West can still bring in his previous opinion.
I would expect that knowing this Berangela de la Nifong has no intention of calling Owen to the stand. He’s tainted goods. Discrediting him would be like shooting fish into a barrel.
And that’s before going over with him on the stand these most impressive books Mr. Owen has “recently” published:
BOOKS PUBLISHED
Tom Owen, Scaling the Fretboard (Chappell Music 1973)
Tom Owen, The Chord Coloring Book (Chappell Music 1974)
Tom Owen, Tenor Banjo (Chappell Music 1975)
Tom Owen, Lead Guitar (Chappell Music 1976)
Tom Owen, The Classic Blues Singers (Chappell Music 1977)”
I’m sorry Mr. Owen, but I would not use you to endorse Q-Tips.
“I’m sorry Mr. Owen, but I would not use you to endorse Q-Tips.”
Damn you!! I think I just wet myself.
So if the odds of the screaming being from GZ is 48%, than the odds of it being from St. Trayvon is 52%.
Its been a long time since I took a Math class. Help me here, people! Isn’t 52 still greater than 48? So what am I missing?
His software says that there is a 48% chance the voice is George Zimmerman. Out of all the voices in the world, George Zimmerman’s just happens to match up to the one screaming on the tape with 48% accuracy. That seems an extraordinarily high degree of matching for such a poor audio sample – MUCH higher than you would expect from comparison to some random voice sample.
This does NOT mean that there is a 52% chance that the voice is that of Trayvon Martin. The Martin family have hidden or destroyed any exemplars of Trayvon Martin’s voice that could be used for voice identification, so all we have to go on is the 7-Eleven surveillance tape, which clearly shows that Trayvon Martin’s voice was very deep, like his father’s voice. His voice was much deeper than George Zimmerman’s voice is, which accounts for confusion of a couple of witnesses who have claimed they are sure it was Trayvon Martin screaming because it was a child’s voice.
I did not adequately articulate my point.
“Two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong!”
There are only two possibilities, unless there was a screamer on the grassy knoll.
TM or GZ. That’s it. Yet Owen didn’t say it was TM.
So what am I missing?? Could it be that Owen isn’t credible?
In a statistical analysis, there would be a probability distribution of A, a probability distribution of B, and a distribution that cannot be determined A or B. I don’t know that much about the specific audio software, but if there were samples of Trayvon’s voice to use an analytic sample would be % A, % B, and % cannot be determined. That’s just statistics.
With a Trayvon sample, 48% Zimmerman would undoubtedly be a plurality. Without a Trayvon sample, it means absolutely nothing. That’s why the “expert” leaves the conclusion unstated. The point is for you to conclude erroneously that the remainder goes to the other person. It’s “probably” Trayvon, right?
If the expert states the actual statistical conclusion, the implication dissolves. The prosecution doesn’t want that. Liars, damned liars, etc.
The chance that it was TM who was screaming could not be determined because there was no sample of TM’s voice to compare with the screams on the 911 call. The software developer assumed that there would be at least a 60% match from the source of the screams, and since GZ only matched 48%, they assumed that the scream came from TM. They call that “bulls#!*” where I come from.
I guess Owen would stake his reputation that it was not Trayvon. Since The odds were 48% that it was GZ, I don’t see how, even with exemplars, you can get more than 52% that it is Trayvon. Since neither would be greater than 60%, Owen’s opinion must be that it was neither. In fact it was nobody, obviously.
The problem is that his software was calibrated to recognize only human voices. So while they can learn to speak human-like words, obviously cockatoos are not, in fact, humans. There lies the problem.
The cockatoo.
I think that technically speaking, Owens is saying that if you were able to randomly sample 1,000 screams from the voice that produced the scream on the tape, Zimmerman’s voice would match it about 480 times.
It’s possible that a recording of Martin’s voice would produce a match 900 times and it’s possible that it would produce a match 5 times. We don’t know. So even if you accept the infallibility of his model, it is completely useless as it relates to this case without a similar analysis of Martin’s voice.
So the underlying point about the uselessness of his analysis is 100% correct even to someone who believes Owens’ software to be 100% reliable. His estimate of the likelihood of a match to Zimmerman’s voice (480) doesn’t mean that his model would predict a match of Martin’s voice 520 times. He knows it, which is why he disingenuously stops at saying that he voice is “probably” not Zimmerman’s.
No specific critique of his analysis is necessary in order to render it useless in the case. O’Mara needn’t go down the rabbit hole or expense of calling experts to rebut the voice analysis. Anybody teaching a freshman-level stats course at Rollins, UCF, or a community college could spend an hour walking the judge through it in a hearing.
And he really should have stated that he cannot rule out the possibility that the voice is not Zimmerman’s with his super-duper black box. That’s as far as a responsible person would have gone. (Or to put it in terms a journalist who forgot their rudimentary stats courses could understand, “I don’t know.”)
Your math is fine.
Your statistical analysis, not so much.
Voice analysis here is not a zero-sum game. If the sum of probabilities that the voice is Martin’s and Zimmerman’s adds up to 1, it is purely coincidental – and an astronomically unlikely coincidence, at that.
Consider an analogy: DNA testing. Let’s say that a (married) woman claims that a man rapes her, and the police have a DNA sample. The forensic analysis would compare the DNA sample against the DNA from the suspect. I’m not privy to such things, but I would guess that the husband’s DNA would also be compared.
Using completely made-up numbers, the analysis could return the following:
Husband probability: 0.00001%
Suspect probability: 90%
Make sense?
So, to turn that back to the voice analysis: it does not follow that, since the voice analysis computed a 48% probability that the voice is Zimmerman’s, that there must be a 52% probability that the voice is Martin’s.
It is entirely conceivable that, had any Martin voice exemplars been available, the voice analysis could have resulted in a probability much higher (or lower) that the voice was Martin’s.
The point is not to compare any one probability against a perfect match, but rather to compare one analysis against the other. If voice analysis determined:
Zimmerman probability: 48%
Martin probability: 10%
Then what would your evaluation be?
Further: I would presume that a 48% match, given the nature of the voice exemplars, is an incredibly high match (to the extent that an impassioned scream can even meaningfully be compared to a calm, spoken voice). It is doubtful that known exemplars, under the same circumstances, would yield a considerably higher match probability.
“Voice analysis here is not a zero-sum game. If the sum of probabilities that the voice is Martin’s and Zimmerman’s adds up to 1, it is purely coincidental – and an astronomically unlikely coincidence, at that.”
No problem with what you said but consider:
1. Assume the voice that produced the scream belongs to either Martin or Zimmerman and the cumulative probability is 1. (This, in the context of Owens’ analysis, is the most favorable assumption to Martin’s supporters)
2. If Owens were able to perform the same analysis against a recording of Martin and the two probabilities don’t sum to something very close to one, it’s due to a lack of explanatory power of his model or error.
What do you get? 48% chance Zimmerman : 52% chance Martin
Owens says that something close to 60% is required to lead him to believe that the voice belongs to one or the other.
That means that the more you subscribe to the accuracy of Owens’ model, the stronger your belief should be that he cannot establish any statistically significant difference between the likelihood of the voice being Martin’s vs. the likelihood of it being Zimmerman’s.
If I’m understanding correctly it’s not the odds it was George screaming, it’s how much of a match the voice was to George’s. 48% of whatever ‘voice points’ were used matched George’s voice. Trayvon’s could be a better or lesser match.
Coreshift, you might be right. I was simply relying on the CNN summary of results, which indicated “likelihood”. My comments re: probability should be ignored.
Still, no. It’s not a zero-sum game.
It’s a triangulation, not a summation. It is a triangulation of many exemplars of A against the control, not a relative comparison of A against the control versus B against the control.
Summing the probabilities simply does not yield a meaningful number. It could be a perfectly valid outcome to have Zimmerman have a 48% match probability, and for Martin to have a 10% match probability, even though those two probabilities add up to 58%, not 100%. Likewise, it could be a perfectly valid outcome to have Zimmerman have a 48% match probability, and for Martin to have a 70% match probability, even though those two probabilities add up to 118%, not 100%.
If Martin’s and Zimmerman’s voices were similar, one would expect that they would yield similar probabilities of matching the recording. If Martin’s and Zimmerman’s voices were dissimilar, one would expect that they would yield dissimilar probabilities of matching the recording.
Based on the (very) little we know of Martin’s voice, it appears that Martin had a much deeper voice than that of Zimmerman; thus, it is doubtful that voice analysis would yield similar probabilities for both voices to match any given test sample.
Listen to Robert Zimmerman and Tracy Martin speak. Now, perform a voice analysis of their voices, compared against any given test sample. If that voice analysis resulted in a 48% probability that the voice was Robert Zimmerman’s, and a 52% probability that the voice was Tracy Martin’s, would you trust that result? (Of course not.)
But at the end of the day, the point is two-fold:
1) There are not enough contextual Zimmerman voice exemplars to yield a probability with any usable degree of confidence
2) Without any Martin voice exemplars to yield a probability (even one with a similarly unusable degree of confidence), it is absolutely impossible to put the Zimmerman probability in any sort of context to result in a finding regarding the identity of the voice.
Dear Chip:
Quite right. But we have to assume that Owen’s software is actually capable of doing what he says it does, and we have no idea of any of the parameters or the assumptions upon which it is based. We do know by his admission that it is not accepted in American courts, though may be in at least some foreign courts. Swell.
Maybe this has already been mentioned, but it’s the first time I’ve thought of it:
Maybe there’s even one more reason why MOM is calling for the Frye hearing. Maybe he WANTS Bernie to argue about it, and demand that the “experts” be allowed in. At which point MOM can say, “Fine, but we can’t just have them testify about the test they did on George’s voice. They’ll have to do a test on Trayvon’s voice, too. So, how ’bout it? You got any voice samples yet? We’ve been asking you for a long time…. find any yet? No? Sorry then, but no can do.”
In other words, it’s just another attempt by MOM to get hold of a recording of Trayvon’s voice.
Chip,
Yeah, you are right. It was a point I made in my first post and then subsequently contradicted in error. (Maybe it’s a byproduct of following the state’s prosecution of this case.)
Nice reference in Cashill’s article in American Thinker, Chip!
A big problem I have with Owens’ voice analysis is that I don’t know what “48 percent match” means. 48 percent of WHAT? I don’t know what is being “matched,” nor have I ever heard Owen explain what is being matched. Nothing on his web site explains what a “match” is, or even what is being measured.
Just because you can stick a number on something doesn’t entail that the number is meaningful. Fortunately for Owens there are suckers who will believe anything that “sounds scientific.”
Without conducting a refresher class in probability, I would suggest that (using the evaluator’s single data point, it’s poor quality, viz: FBI, and uncalibrated software) there is absolutely no statistical significance to a 52 – 48 outcome, i.e., well within the margin of error of the analysis.
Exactly. If you love the conclusion that the voice is unlikely to be Zimmerman’s, you have to accept the conclusion that it is unlikely to be Martin’s.
Kobeclan: Could it be that Owen isn’t credible?
Nail, meet hammer.
Who is Treyvon Martin? What does he want?
there’s no way George Zimmerman gets convicted. no way. and there’s a high probability crump gets sanctioned by the florida state bar. and nbc will settle with Zimmerman for an undisclosed amount. and Zimmerman’s wife stands roughly a zero chance of being convicted of perjury.
it is pretty much a lock that those four things will happen. but will corey and de la rosa get investigated or punished? no. will Zimmerman sue florida and win? no. will martin’s parents win a civil suit against Zimmerman? no. is Zimmerman’s life in florida over? yes. will he move out of state and live out his life in relative anonymity? yes.
will this case be mostly forgotten in ten years? yes.
I’m so bad. I could not resist rattling the coyote cage (aka Crump) over at Orlando Sentinel (because I know he reads the comments there).
____________________
It is Friday. Time for safe and sane comments at the Orlando Sentinel.
The Zimmerman trial? I don’t care about that. I am putting together hard evidence to support each of these elements set forth in Florida’s tampering jury instruction. Ben Crump is going down. :)
21.8 TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
Section 918.13 Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Prospective) defendant Benjamin Crump knew that a criminal trial, proceeding or investigation by a duly constituted prosecuting authority or law enforcement agency of this state was pending or about to be instituted. And,
2. a. (Prospective) defendant Benjamin Crump altered, destroyed, concealed, or removed records, documents, or things with the purpose to impair verity or availability in the investigation or proceeding.
or
2. b. Defendant Benjamin Crump made, presented, or used records, documents, or things knowing them to be false.
I bet a box of Krispy Kreme dognuts that Crump and his lawyer (Blackwell) have this instruction in mind when trying so feverishly to avoid Crump having to testify under oath. (I still say that if Crump is ordered by the DCA to sit for his depo he will Take the Fifth.)
Heh… love it. ;) But my theory on what happens with a correct DCA ruling is a little different. I agree that he’d TRY to take the 5th. And if he, Bernie, Corey, etc are convinced he can get away with it, that’ll be one thing. On the other hand, if they’re worried Crump will be required to open up? Well then, in that case, I think there’s a very good chance the case is suddenly dropped. No more case, no more need to depo Crump… and no worry about Little Benny implicating a bunch of others in the Scheme.
Dear Jello333:
Interesting conjecture. However, I suspect the prosecution is far too egotistical and equally dense to drop the case. I’ve seen a great many just like them. They always think they’re untouchable, and thus far, they have been. Like Nifong in Durham, they’ll bury themselves. All that remains to be seen is whether there are any honest attorneys in Florida in a position to do anything about it.
By the way, who would have jurisdiction (or “standing”?) to file charges against people like Crump, Bernie, Corey? I’m talking prosecutors… could any prosecutor in the state do that, or would it have to be done specifically in Seminole Co (or somewhere else)?
Dear Jello333:
Any potential criminal charges would likely have to be pursued by the State AG. However, in virtually any state, any citizen can complain to the state bar about any attorney. It is entirely up to the lawyers of the bar to police themselves. Often, they do not. I suspect that absent far more and far more disgusting revelations, matters that cause substantial public outrage, Pam Bondi would never pursue charges against the prosecutors she appointed to conduct a political prosecution for conducting a political prosecution.
However, political winds are notorious for shifting dramatically and without warning…
Well as part of my illustrious career (I have not commented on this before since I don’t like tooting my own horn) over time I have separately had five lawyers disbarred. Coincidentally Crump coming to my attention, last year I got a lawyer sentenced to five years in prison. That case even received coverage in the WSJ, albeit a quite small article, like about 3″ small. No matter, imprisonment was the culmination of staying on that lawyer/crook’s back for 20 years. A joyful day was e-mailing his victims screen captures showing the lawyer going from the state bar’s attorney directory to this (behind) bars directory:
http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/default.aspx
Anyway, I mention all this as a foundation to say I know quite a bit about about nailing lawyers :) This is why it was damn easy to figure out Crump’s con quite soon after he appeared on the national scene in early March 2012.
Since Crump has now been fully apprised that there’s many of us with a bead on him, I guess it is OK to publicly discuss aspects exposure.
Crump has wide ranging exposure here. IMO Crump losing his bar license is the least of his worries. He can be pursued by the Fed (albeit unlikely?), the State, the Zimmermans (and others), and even Martin/Fulton. He faces a multitude of criminal charges, and civil liability (for example, Crump and the entire Scheme Team – including PR guy Ryan Julison, can be sued by Zimmerman under federal and Florida RICO statutes).
It is late, I’ll continue this tomorrow, especially since this is kind of off topic, I think. Don’t mean to be a thread jacker. Besides, the task at hand is the upcoming trial. Regardless of how THAT turns out, Crump remains exposed. (The best illustration of this concept, OJ Simpson beat the murder rap, but then was found liable in the wrongful death action filed by Simpson and Goldman heirs.) So no matter the verdict Crump will be held to answer for his actions.
Right now everything is on hold until the trial is concluded (just as the parties agreed to a hold on the NBC defamation litigation until after the criminal case).
Oh, I like that a LOT… thanks. And I’ll be around after George is exonerated, when it comes time to go after the conspirators. So I’ll be watching what you or anyone else is up to in that regard, and if I can help even just a teeny bit, just let me know…
Dear ItsMichaelNotMike:
Interesting take. Of course, he’ll never be prosecuted by the corrupt crew in Florida. I agree that if he is deposed, he’ll take the Fifth. Wouldn’t that be lovely?
Oh, and worry not. I don’t grade readers, only my students. Considering the sheer numbers of words I write here and elsewhere every week, I’m always aware of how easy it is to make mistake and how difficult to catch them all. We do our best.
he could easily be sanctioned by the state bar.
I’m gonna go against the grain here and bet he’ll just lie through his teeth…
The obvious pattern so far has been: get caught in one lie, just tell another.
And why not? Since Nelson was so willing to accept “I forgot’ (to tell the defense that Wit 8 confessed to perjury seven months ago) as an acceptable answer from Bernie, it should work like a charm for Crump, too…
Of course there’s also the stand-by excuse “I made a comment to the media that was later mischaracterized” as explained so well by Sybrina… (though this is actually a case of get caught telling the truth, just tell a lie)
Or even the Gilbreath ~I-don’t-know-who-wrote-that-it-wasn’t-me~ method of plausible deniability would work since Blackwell’s firm prepared the b.s. affidavit for Crump.
I just don’t see Crump exerting his right to not make self-incriminating statements because it would essentially be an admission of some kind of criminal wrongdoing… and it would inherently implicate too many other people.
Oh, almost off to bed then I read your comment Nivico.
Absolutely, Crump could try to lie but I don’t think he will and here’s why:
Crump is a moron. That’s why he got caught in so many lies from March 2012 all the way into 2013. He knows that there’s no way he can keep everything straight in a deposition where a street smart lawyer like MOM or West is grilling him in the formal depo environment with him under oath.
(Generally, since one counsel only is allowed to question the witness, I submit if Crump’s depo is allowed West will do the questioning. I guarantee Crump is sweating bullets over being questioned by West. West comes across as the type who will tell Crump to lay his hand on the conference table to take the oath, and then proceed to cut off Crump’s fingers with a Ginzu knife, while chortling on the record “Yee haw, it’s depo time!”)
Here is how I imagine West at depo (the guy on the right, not in the shot). And the witness (the ol’ white guy), pretend that’s Crump.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISW3_KT5PeY
Anyway, in the maybe 1200 or so depositions I have conducted there’s only been a handful who have been able to pull off remaining consistent on the lies they have told throughout the litigation, and then at depo. I don’t perceive Crump capable of
Crump is smart enough to know his limitations. He knows full well that he has contradicted himself so many times when giving interviews that it would be impossible for him to perpetuate the lies at his deposition. So in addition to Taking the Fifth I expect a lot of “I don’t recall” and “I don’t remember.”
Yes, it would be explosive if Crump Took the Fifth, especially that happening so close to trial. But the alternative is worse: getting tripped up at deposition, caught in lies, and committing perjury.
Unfortunately, even if the DCA reverses Judge Nelson, Crump may call in sick, so to speak and otherwise duck the depo for a month or two, until after the trial is over. (Then again, just because the trial starts does not mean Crump can’t sit for his depo. So if the DCA allows the depo, Crump would have to avoid testifying for at least six weeks, which may be difficult to achieve.)
Bonus Comment: In all my years, and knowing as much as I do about attorneys becoming witnesses in a case, the attorney/client privilege, and the work product doctrine I have NEVER observed a situation as clear as Crump’s where his deposition should be allowed.
If the DCA does not allow the deposition of a WITNESS (attorney or not), then the DCA will have made a political decision, not one based on precedent and sound legal principles.
I’m signing off. No time to proof this, so if there’s grammar and spelling errors, take the pain.
” In the Trayvon Martin case, it is the prosecution seeking to establish reasonable doubt about the case of the investigating police! ” — don’t you have two stories that you followed on this forum about EXACTLY that?
I am amazed how everyone seems to forget zim own words saying Trayvon covered his nose and his mouth. Yet the cries are not muffled. Who cares what the voice experts say. Fat boy hung himself.
Two points to negate your statement.
One, there is no audio of the first part of the attack, probably at least 30 seconds worth. So you can’t say definitively that the cries weren’t muffled in the beginning when Mr. Martin first mounted Georgie. You just can’t.
Two, W11 heard a Ha, Ha, Ha sound. She was quite clear to Serino about hearing that. There was much discussion on that subject in the interview. It’s VERY POSSIBLE they were the muffled cries for help emanating from Georgie as Mr. Martin tried to suffocate him. It was possible that they were the untaped sounds of HELP, HELP, HELP which were hampered by the large hands of Mr. Martin attempting to cover Georgie’s only way to breathe that night.
I have a question for you, do you usually ridicule people with a weight problem? If you do, grow up.
Go hang out with your DogPound buddies, bigot. You ARE a bigot, aren’t you? Or maybe you’re just a run-of-the-mill racist? Heh… it’s ok, you can be a bigot and a racist all in one!
Pretty impressive!
Regina… what Ejarra said, Zimmerman has never contended that Trayvon Martin kept his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth the entire time. Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin told him to quit screaming and while telling him this he briefly placed his hand over Zimmerman’s nose and mouth.
You need to read all the reports, witness statements, and media interviews before making this the centerpiece of your argument. This is a contradiction in your own mind and nowhere else. Surely you have noticed that the prosecution is NOT making the same argument as yours, nor has Crump adopted it as part of his fraudulent narrative.
In regards to your ridicule of Zimmerman’s weight, yeah, Zimmerman has put on weight. You would too if cooped up, afraid to go outside because you are in fear for yourself and your entire family.
Plus George’s weight gain is proof damages, the physical injury caused by Crump, et al. (In many civil suits weight gain is an element of damages.)
Another element of damages is defendants’ wrongful acts subjecting the Plaintiffs to scorn, ridicule, hatred and violence.
Witness 11 said the screams were muffled at first and became louder and clearer as the “scuffle” moved from the side of her house into her backyard and ended in her neighbor’s backyard. We hear 42 seconds of what she heard right before the shot.
I eagerly await your update after the DCA rules. Thank you for your very well thought out articles.
Dear LittleLaughter:
You’re most kind. I’ve just posted a new update. I hope you like it, and welcome to SMM.