Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[Catta]

Really? No videos, voice mail recordings, recorded cell phone calls, voice mails left on someone else's phone in the past 10 years?

I very rarely leave messages - have not done so for like... a couple of years and those i have are probably deleted, i dont do voice mail nor record myself on video - maybe someone has a recording of my voice when they recorded something on video but i doubt it - i do have one of me and my friends singing to the music of street musicians in the Paris metro but i dont think it will help no matter how awesome we were

[xylophone]

Depends on how you use it. The state could say "this doesn't match Zimmerman's voice, so his story can't be accurate" based on analysis on only his voice, because whether it belongs to Martin or not is irrelevant to that statement.

They couldn't say "its Martin screaming", but they can say "its not Zimmerman". Its not a slam dunk but it does deflate Zimmerman's defense somewhat.

Ya, but what if the sample was too poor to get anything definitive either way? We don't know if the recording is a 49%, 47% or even a 100% match to Martin. I don't think Zimmerman's defense attorney (assuming this would ever get to court) would let that fly.

---------- Post added 2012-04-02 at 05:27 PM ----------

I very rarely leave messages - have not done so for like... a couple of years and those i have are probably deleted, i dont do voice mail nor record myself on video - maybe someone has a recording of my voice when they recorded something on video but i doubt it - i do have one of me and my friends singing to the music of street musicians in the Paris metro but i dont think it will help no matter how awesome we were

Hmmmm.... You seem to cover your tracks quite well... Plan on murdering someone sometime soon?

[Catta]

If we are, for some reason, unable to compare biometrics against both of them then I don't see how this is gonna be usable in court.

While one cannot say who it is, one can with reasonable certainty say who it isnt

[Wells]

Ya, but what if the sample was too poor to get anything definitive either way?

Having heard the recordings released they're really not that bad. Static and phone line distortion isn't as big a deal as people think they are.

If I recall correctly the rule of thumb for credible possibility with audio biometrics is 60%. Anything above that and you can reasonably say it could be person X, though without certainty, which is 90%.

Its been a long ass time since I was studying digital audio though.

[Catta]

Hmmmm.... You seem to cover your tracks quite well... Plan on murdering someone sometime soon?

Yes - but I'm applying for med school so i can do so covertly

[xylophone]

While one cannot say who it is, one can with reasonable certainty say who it isnt

Ya, I get that, but seeing how it's a poor quality recording and lacks a substantial number of words to compare it to w/o comparing it to Martin's voice I don't see how this is gonna be relevant evidence if the case ever goes to trial.

---------- Post added 2012-04-02 at 05:33 PM ----------

Having heard the recordings released they're really not that bad. Static and phone line distortion isn't as big a deal as people think they are.

If I recall correctly the rule of thumb for credible possibility with audio biometrics is 60%. Anything above that and you can reasonably say it could be person X, though without certainty, which is 90%.

Its been a long ass time since I was studying digital audio though.

All that on top of it being audio from within the lady's house and it just being one word screamed instead of spoken makes me a little skeptical.

[Wells]

Ya, I get that, but seeing how it's a poor quality recording and lacks a substantial number of words to compare it to w/o comparing it to Martin's voice I don't see how this is gonna be relevant evidence if the case ever goes to trial.

As far as biometrics are concerned there's no difference between words and random sounds. The system works based on how you form sounds, what those sounds mean doesn't matter.

[xylophone]

Yes - but I'm applying for med school so i can do so covertly

Screen capped, and I will be watching for any fishy behavior in the area around Copenhagen.

---------- Post added 2012-04-02 at 05:35 PM ----------

As far as biometrics are concerned there's no difference between words and random sounds. The system works based on how you form sounds, what those sounds mean doesn't matter.

Then what is the need for the 10 word minimum that Droids keeps posting about if the words themselves don't matter?

[Catta]

Screen capped, and I will be watching for any fishy behavior in the area around Copenhagen.

---------- Post added 2012-04-02 at 05:35 PM ----------



Then what is the need for the 10 word minimum that Droids keeps posting about if the words themselves don't matter?

Silly people - i watch too much Criminal Minds to kill in my own neighborhood

[xylophone]

Silly people - i watch too much Criminal Minds to kill in my own neighborhood

This thread is now about how to commit the perfect murder (as if it wasn't already).

[Wells]

Then what is the need for the 10 word minimum that Droids keeps posting about if the words themselves don't matter?

Their guidelines for evidence are on line. The reason they want a certain amount of material is because you want a sufficient sample size, not because the words are terribly important themselves. If they were then they'd want specific words or sounds.

Which is why when their chair says he has enough you can be reasonably sure he does.

[Catta]

This thread is now about how to commit the perfect murder (as if it wasn't already).

Yes - The quick way is to just go to Florida and walk around and find someone to stand my ground against...

[Wells]

This thread is now about how to commit the perfect murder (as if it wasn't already).

If you kill a young male in his mid 20s that you have no connection to and do so without A) letting the cops find your murder weapon B) don't let anyone see you then statistically you'll get away with it, without ever even being arrested.

Most murders are solved by old fashion police work, not CSI magic. If there's nothing to tie you to someone there's no reason to look at you. More murders go unsolved than people like to think about.

---------- Post added 2012-04-03 at 12:41 AM ----------

Yes - The quick way is to just go to Florida and walk around and find someone to stand my ground against...

Too soon, too soon.

[xylophone]

Yes - The quick way is to just go to Florida and walk around and find someone to stand my ground against...

Texas has stand your ground laws as well, just wear your "EU RULEZ MURRIKA DROOLZ" shirt and you're bound to get a few bites over there.


But then.... it's Texas so they'll likely have a gun themselves and know how to use it better than you...

---------- Post added 2012-04-02 at 05:44 PM ----------

If you kill a young male in his mid 20s that you have no connection to and do so without A) letting the cops find your murder weapon B) don't let anyone see you then statistically you'll get away with it, without ever even being arrested.

Most murders are solved by old fashion police work, not CSI magic. If there's nothing to tie you to someone there's no reason to look at you. More murders go unsolved than people like to think about.

I had a Canadian cop relative who said if you ever wanna get away with murder in Vancouver just shoot someone, throw the gun in the river and never talk about it again.

[Wells]

Texas has stand your ground laws as well, just wear your "EU RULEZ MURRIKA DROOLZ" shirt and you're bound to get a few bites over there.


But then.... it's Texas so they'll likely have a gun themselves and know how to use it better than you...

I suppose you could just claim you were gay or something and the presence of so many armed Texans made you fear for you life which is why you opened fire without warning. (this is a joke folks)

[Pendulous]

Really? No videos, voice mail recordings, recorded cell phone calls, voice mails left on someone else's phone in the past 10 years?

Nope. My answering machine message on my cell phone is a recording of George Carlin (it's relevant, I promise), and I don't leave voice mails, nor do I listen to incoming voice mails from my friends, but that's a different story.

I guess if you can't figure out whose voice it is, you don't have much a case against Zimmerman.

[Wells]

I guess if you can't figure out whose voice it is, you don't have much a case against Zimmerman.

If you can reasonably prove that Zimmerman was not defending himself you do.

[xylophone]

Nope. My answering machine message on my cell phone is a recording of George Carlin (it's relevant, I promise), and I don't leave voice mails, nor do I listen to incoming voice mails from my friends, but that's a different story.

I guess if you can't figure out whose voice it is, you don't have much a case against Zimmerman.

That's the point I was trying to make. With the sample it can't be confirmed to be either Zimmerman or Martin, but we can say it likely wasn't Zimmerman, but now we need to use the same rubric to test it against Martin otherwise (I'm not a lawyer or anything so this is just assumption on my part) it probably won't be useable in court.

[Vanyali]

That's the point I was trying to make. With the sample it can't be confirmed to be either Zimmerman or Martin, but we can say it likely wasn't Zimmerman, but now we need to use the same rubric to test it against Martin otherwise (I'm not a lawyer or anything so this is just assumption on my part) it probably won't be useable in court.

No, it can be used in court still.

It CAN NOT be used to say it was Martin's voice.
It CAN be said that it wasn't Zimmerman's voice.

If it isn't Zimmerman's voice, then he wasn't crying for help. If he wasn't crying for help, his "self-defense" theory gets hit pretty hard. It can't be used to SAY Martin was crying for help, but it can be used to imply it without ever saying it.

Trials are dirty things

[xylophone]

No, it can be used in court still.

It CAN NOT be used to say it was Martin's voice.
It CAN be said that it wasn't Zimmerman's voice.

If it isn't Zimmerman's voice, then he wasn't crying for help. If he wasn't crying for help, his "self-defense" theory gets hit pretty hard. It can't be used to SAY Martin was crying for help, but it can be used to imply it without ever saying it.

Trials are dirty things

So what if the same test is done with a sample of Martin's voice and it comes back less than 48%? That's the point I'm trying to make but for some reason am unable to articulate properly.