Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say
Posted on 03/31/2012 4:44:41 PM PDT by Krankor
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
“At least three witnesses have reported that Martin was on the bottom, under Zimmerman, face down when he was shot.”
Do you have a link or some sort of source for this or are you just making this up?
“...Is that a FACT? Three witness have stated that Trayvon was on the bottom, face down....”
Do you have a link to any source for this information, or are you too making it up? Are you and ‘floriduh voter’ two of those three eyewitnesses?
The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.By Owens' own standards, these recordings are not suitable for analysis.
There are those times when a voice sample must be obtained without the knowledge of the suspect. It is possible to make an identification from a surreptitious recording but the amount of speech necessary to do the comparison is usually much greater. If the suspect is being engaged in conversation for the purpose of obtaining a voice sample, the conversation must be manipulated in such a way so as to have the suspect repeat as many of the words and phrases found in the text of the unknown recording as possible.
The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.
And I'm not sure why anybody would weigh it more heavily than the testimony of an eyewitness who both saw and heard that it was Zimmerman.
These experts are really damaging their own credibility making such declarative statements - assuming the press quoted them accurately, which is always in doubt. They could well have said "they can't say with certainty it is Zimmerman," which is a great deal different than saying "it definitely isn't him."
Also worth noting that the cop in question was a state alcohol enforcement agent, not a street cop, the incident occurred in a college bar when Zimmerman was 21, and that Zimmerman pled not guilty before the charges were dismissed.
Doesn’t mean he should have done whatever he did, but let’s not make it out to be more than it was, either.
I’ve watched this interview. That witness clearly states he could not see who was on top or who was yelling. Nothing he says contradicts the other witness “John” says that he could see those things.
“.....I believe they were both on the ground in close physical contact. Probably rolling around a bit, which would explain why some witnesses saw Zimmerman on the botton and some saw Martin on the bottom.....”
“Which witnesses saw Martin on the bottom again? Please link to hard evidence.
They make no such claims. I have listened to interviews with all of them. The two women are room-mates, and Anderson Cooper’s first question to them was “What was the first thing you saw?” They answered “Well, we heard a gunshot and went to the window.” By their own words, they witnessed nothing leading up to the shooting.
The other, also interviewed by Cooper, was specifically asked who was on top and he stated he did not know - it was too dark for him to see.
You need to actually listen or read the statements - don’t go by media characterizations of what was said. I’ve heard Cutcher in other interviews complain that police only spent five minutes with her, which I suspect is part of what gets so many people to say the investigation was somehow slipshod or incomplete. But when the witness begins by saying she didn’t see anything how much time ought the police to spend talking to her?
Or that the ABC reporter just didn't understand the meaning of the documents, and did not bother to ask about it.
According to Tracy Martin, the Sanford police recounted this sequence of events: Trayvon Martin walked up to Zimmermans vehicle and asked why he was following him. Zimmerman denied following the youth and rolled up the car window. Minutes after Trayvon walked away, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.
Surely that would be on the 911 tape where Zimmerman says Martin is "checking me out"? But I don't hear it. Why would Zimmerman make that up - he had to know his call was being recorded? Or, why would the cops make that up - to get dad to back down? How's that working?
The Orlando Sentinel contacted the voice identification experts. Both determined it was not George Zimmerman who called for help. Using different methods they took all the screams, put those together, and cut out everything else. You can listen to the extracted screams at the Sentinels site.
I didn't find the audio. I found a transcript.
-- Why would Zimmerman make that up --
Why would Tracy Martin make up or misunderstand what he was told by the police? This is not the only incidence of Tracy misunderstanding what the police told him.
-- The Orlando Sentinel contacted the voice identification experts. --
The Orlando Sentinel is invested in preserving its narrative, not in getting to the truth. That said, the experts are running against their own test protocol, which tells them the evidence is insufficient to support a conclusion.
Well said. To add: most Freepers can smell a left-wing con job the same way. This whole thing smelles just like the Duke laCross case, except the prosecutor hasn’t volunteered to be Nifong...
It is a proven and admitted (by Armitage) fact that it was Richard Armitage who “leaked” Plame’s status, but you know that. Not that the turd Plame was worth one iota more than her self-aggrandizing.
That was a travesty of justice, and it angers me to this day. I contributed to his defense fund, and Bush should have pardoned him completely. I supported George W. Bush in many (but not all) aspects, and his declination to do this was an act of political cowardice which still rankles me.
Libby should have never been in front of that Grand Jury, it was a fishing expedition looking for scalps or someone to “frog march” out of the White House. The bastards got his. I hate them for that.
Yes. But that's not relevant to the issue at Libby's trial. The question at Libby's trial was, at the time he gave testimony to the investigators, did he know Plame worked at the CIA.
The question and evidence about telling reporters was adduced to get to the root question, did he know Plame worked at the CIA?
As far as leakers go, it is possible for there to be multiple leakers. IF (and this wasn't) the leak was of protected information, the fact that one person leaks it does not immunize everybody else.
-- Libby should have never been in front of that Grand Jury --
That was a political calculation by Bush, to appoint a special prosecutor. If Libby had come clean up front, Bush and Cheney would have had good information, and could have made a different decision how to handle the situation.
Anyway, I don;t want to rehash the case. We're both entrenched, and I don;t want to diminish any goodwill you might have toward me on account of this disagreement.
I just watched a FoxNews report that referenced the subject article of this thread. Reporter stated experts concluded person crying out for help “could not be Zimmerman” but rather was a young boy. The reporting on this shooting has been horrible. I’ve delt personally with reporters before and they often get minor details a little wrong but this is crazy.
Reports that Trayvon was a truant, a thug, and a drug-dealing pothead have been floating across this site for days. My question is, so what? Smoking marijuana and playing hooky doesnt mean he didn't have the right to cross the street without being stalked and killed by a grown man. The idea that Trayvon's death is somehow less tragic because he may not have been the squeaky-clean boy next door is ludicrous. The attempts to demonize Trayvon are all too similar to attempts to smear rape victims. The fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie is irrelevant, just as irrelevant as it would be to point out that a woman was wearing a miniskirt before someone raped her. Our law does not reserve justice for "perfect victims.
Because the Sanford Police Department reportedly made a number of missteps immediately after Trayvon's murder, it may be difficult to find out the truth. Some witnesses say they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. Others saw Zimmerman straddling Trayvon, hands pressed against the teen's back. Even these witness accounts don't prove the case one way or another. A struggle took place before Trayvon's death, but that certainly doesn't mean that Trayvon initiated the struggle.
Very well stated, and thank you!
The story is Bull snot.
i was subscribing to the Orlando Sentinel & Fish-wrap but No Mas!
It is so leftist their offices should be 50 miles west of Tampa. if you believe anything in this rag you are not using your gray matter.
By the way the are offering new deals on how to fleece the public;
Travyon Martin Shooting Death Prompts Calls for Justice Department Inquiry - Lizette Alvarez - NYTimes.com - March 16, 2012
Frustration also grew after the parents said they had been told by detectives that Mr. Zimmerman had a "squeaky clean" record. They knew this, the detectives said, because Mr. Zimmerman told them.This was addressed early on, by the Sanford Police. Zimmerman - Martin Shooting FAQ (20 kB PDF file)
Why was George Zimmerman labeled as "squeaky clean" when in fact he has a prior arrest history?
In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be "squeaky clean". We are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information.
I consider it typical. I don't trust anything the media says, at face value. If the issue is important to you, look for original source materials. Develop the ability of separating reporter opinion (99.9% of "news" content) from fact. Know that the residual "fact" that has been provided is incomplete, cherry-picked, and otherwise manipulated in presentation so that it loses the context it was in, in fact.
-- I've delt personally with reporters before and they often get minor details a little wrong but this is crazy. --
I've dealt with them too. They are worse than lawyers and politicians, and that's going pretty low.
I wouldn’t worry about that. Your posts are well reasoned and well stated. I don’t have a problem with disagreement, and I understand your viewpoint on this perfectly.
It has become emotional rather than rational with me at this point.
Thanks for all that. One of the things that can get frustrating is trying to explain what the issue is, and how the law works, etc., to a person who doesn't understand, or carves out an imaginary exception, etc. That's why I usually say it once, make sure I've expressed my idea clearly enough, then move on. It is not my goal to change minds, rather, it is simply to share mine and how I got it.
Well, you haven't presented anything factual to back up your opinion. I always thought the prosecutor was the one who had to prove the guilt of the defendant.
Also, have you factored in legal changes such as Stand Your Ground in making your determination?
Well, that’s your problem. There’s no need to correct all errors, lies and etc. on the forum - people will generally figure out the details that matter, even faced with posts that misrepresent the source material.
You are right. I’m not even any kind of authority on this story. I just pick up on the very blatantly ridiculous things some people say. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be for you, and for others that keep right on top of this story.
The death of an unarmed individual by someone carrying a gun is plenty of probably cause. If stand your ground applies, it more than likely applies for Treyvon. Furthermore, because Zimmerman followed Treyvon after being told not to puts him in a position that he will probably be unable to avail himself of standard self-defense OR stand your ground.
I prosecuted several similar cases in Fairfax. I had one with two brothers where one killed the other after being jumped. Got a voluntary manslaughter conviction.
The idiocy surrounding race, what either was like before the incident, etc is meaningless.
There are MANY facts in this case that give you by probable cause. This would sail through a preliminary hearing and go to trial. Ppl are too quick to take the “conservative” v “liberal” side here. I could give two hoots as a prosecutor.
Now, is he guilty? Beats me. But that is a VERY different test than whether or not he should be prosecuted. He should be and will be. It is an easy call.
NAACP RIPS SHARPTON. Orlando newspaper = not my words or opinion.
Frustration, like happiness, is a state of mind. If a story catches my interest, one of the things I do is seek out conflicting reports as well as source material. In other words, I try to figure out what, most likely, really happened.
Once in a while I share my investigation and thought process. Once in awhile I repeat a point over time and across multiple threads, but I've found that it is literally impossible to correct a mass misunderstanding, even on this single website.
Unless the shooter is a Fairfax County Police Officer, right?
I haven't seen the Fairfax prosecutor's office bring charges against the several police officers who shot unarmed citizens.
Your analysis is, therefore, peculiar.
So it matters not that Trayvon Martin was using potentially lethal force against Zimmerman? Would you prosecute someone for attempted murder for repeatedly bashing another person's head against the sidewalk?
You are also making an assumption, absent any kind of evidence, that Trayvon Martin had some kind of right to be attacking Zimmerman. Please show where it is illegal for a person to follow and report someone they deem to be suspicious. Also, please indicate any evidence you have that Zimmerman may have been brandishing his weapon or in any other way acting in a manner that would have provided legal justification for Martin to be assaulting him in self-defense.
BTW, as another FReeper pointed out to me, Florida's Stand Your Ground law is more than just eliminating the legal requirement that one has to try to retreat before resorting legally to lethal force. It also provides safeguards against prosecution for using force. So you might want to bone up on current Florida law before you so casually decree that Zimmerman should be prosecuted.
Has anyone else noticed the complete absence of the word “allegedly”, in all of the coverage of this story?
Change agent writer fomenting revolt.
There are virtually no eyewitnesses in this case. I’ve read about more eyewitnesses than they have ppl in FL.
“.........because Zimmerman followed Treyvon after being told not to puts him in a position that he will probably be unable to avail himself of standard self-defense......”
Just the facts, Ma’am! He was not told not to follow Martin. What was said, when he acknowledged that he was following Martin, was “We don’t need you to do that”.
There is a difference in meaning, no?
For a former prosecutor, he sure does have a rather poor grasp of the facts of the case, and has difficulty distinguishing his opinions from evidence.
The law is radically different when it comes to the state using deadly force. In FL, a preliminary finding of claimed justified use of deadly force does NOT immunize a state actor, but it does immunize a private actor.
A prosecutor in FL who brings a case w/o probable cause (and the prosecutor posting here has his facts all screwed up - who knows what decision he'd reach if he had accurate facts) is at risk of being found personally liable.
It’s the people willfully spreading false information that really get me. They’ll say something blatantly false on one thread, be shown the error of what they said, and move on to another thread to repeat the same thing. That is not a search for truth or debating in good faith.
The defamation lawyers have.
Geraldo, Your Apology Is Bullsh*t! by Russell Simmons
Family Moments! The Final Days Of Trayvon Martin (PHOTOS)
Funeral Director Says: “Trayvon Didn’t Fight With Anybody” (DETAILS) Keith Olbermann Named New CEO Of GlobalGrind (DETAILS)Posted 5 hours 13 min ago by Staff Writer for Global Grind Staff
Keith Olbermann runs this site
GlobalGrind is pleased to announce that Keith Olbermann has become the new CEO of the Russell Simmons’ founded website. In a dramatic turn of events, Mr. Olbermann became the new chief of GlobalGrind after
Of the 7,290 people in attendance at Len Barker’s perfect game in 1981, nearly 80,000 of them are still living.
Adult males askert of a 17 year old boy. lol Some adult males around here need to grow a pair.
Yeah. Once in awhile I feel energetic enough to ridicule them. Most readers figure out, quick enough, who the "incredible" posters are. And, FWIW, the identities shift around on an issue by issue basis. Somebody who is sane in, e.g. a Schiavo discussion, is irrational in a different one.
-- That is not a search for truth or debating in good faith. --
I read pretty fast, and just skip over what they post. Saves time and heartburn. Take care of yourself, and trust others to be capable of doing the same.
When I was 17 I was fully physically capable of beating someone to death. You’re an idiot.
It is also disturbing to me that you, as a prosecutor, profess to support charging people with felonies in the absence of any analytical decision on your part that they have committed a crime.
How many defense attorneys have, in the face of your charges, told their clients "look man, this could go either way. If you plead guilty they're offering five years of probation with no jail. If this goes to trial and you're found guilty, you;re looking at ten years". How many defendants took those pleas? How many of those defendants pleaded guilty to a crime for which your position was "is he guilty? Beats me."
Perhaps this is the "Commonwealth" doctrine, since Virginia, as a Commonwealth tends to hold its citizens to a higher standard. I remind you that Florida is no such tyranny. Ironic, the Virginia motto: 'Sic Semper Tyrannis.'
Floriduh quotes a communist, no-sponsor radio show, and Alice quotes a site that is run by Keith Olbermann (CEO)
see post 391. Any quotes from Van Jones, you two?
Bahahaha I was just going back through the thread to see who it was that was citing globalgrind as a source.
I couldn’t care less what the NAALCP thinks one way or another. I couldn’t care less what you think either. I just think other FReepers should know you can’t be trusted.
By the same token you get a sense of who the true investigative type posters here are by reading posts. I look forward to reading more of your stuff. Thanks for keeping on top of this.