• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

State voice experts may be using phony science

buck

DP Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
13,061
Reaction score
5,128
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Attorneys for murder suspect George Zimmerman are challenging the scientific validity of state voice recognition experts.
In a new motion, defense attorney Mark O'Mara wrote that those unnamed experts may be using phony science, so the judge should hold a hearing, listen to evidence about how they did their work then decide whether to allow them to testify at Zimmerman's trial.

George Zimmerman attorneys: State voice experts may be using phony science - OrlandoSentinel.com

Based on what I know of the voice analysis done in the public realm (Owen and Primeau), anyway, this seems appropriate.
 
Attorneys for murder suspect George Zimmerman are challenging the scientific validity of state voice recognition experts.
In a new motion, defense attorney Mark O'Mara wrote that those unnamed experts may be using phony science, so the judge should hold a hearing, listen to evidence about how they did their work then decide whether to allow them to testify at Zimmerman's trial.

George Zimmerman attorneys: State voice experts may be using phony science - OrlandoSentinel.com

Based on what I know of the voice analysis done in the public realm (Owen and Primeau), anyway, this seems appropriate.

Why must this be a separate hearing? So-called experts have been taken apart on the witness stand quite often.

This could backfire. If the judge rules that the people testifying are experts, if the defense tries to take them apart on the stand, the prosecution can point to the fact that a thorough hearing was held on the subject and the judge determined they qualified as experts.

If I were the attorney, I would wait, get my ducks in a row, and rip into them on the witness stand during the trial -- along with finding better-qualified people to contradict their testimony. But that's just me.
 
Some interesting points from the OP article.

- "FBI audio experts tried to analyze the recording but gave up, saying the quality of the recording was too poor."


- "Family attorney Benjamin Crump told reporters that Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, changed his opinion after listening to a cleaned up version of the recording, but prosecutors last week told Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson that they knew of no cleaned up version.'

-"Owen is a courtroom veteran, but in his analysis of the voice on that 911 recording used a new software program he had developed. He removed all other sound from the recording, except for the cries for help, and using biometrics, compared it to a recording of Zimmerman's voice and concluded it was not him. Owen came to no conclusion about who it was."

Unless its a FBI conspiracy it seems the recording is worthless for analysis.:mrgreen:

So the prosecution knows of no clean up version, interesting.

Owens says he determined its not Z, but then made no determination of who it was. Its a conspiracy I tell you, who was the unidentifed third peson on the tape:mrgreen:

In the end what we have is Z saying its him yelling for help. We have two voice experts(?) who one says he can't determine its TM and the other saying it is of a younger person. Then we have the FBI saying the tape quality is worthless for analysis.

Think I will go with Z and the FBI on this one. (resonalble doubt for the other).
 
Why must this be a separate hearing? So-called experts have been taken apart on the witness stand quite often.

This could backfire. If the judge rules that the people testifying are experts, if the defense tries to take them apart on the stand, the prosecution can point to the fact that a thorough hearing was held on the subject and the judge determined they qualified as experts.

If I were the attorney, I would wait, get my ducks in a row, and rip into them on the witness stand during the trial -- along with finding better-qualified people to contradict their testimony. But that's just me.

I tend to agree with you. The defense has a strong witness with the FBI.
 
Some interesting points from the OP article.

- "FBI audio experts tried to analyze the recording but gave up, saying the quality of the recording was too poor."


- "Family attorney Benjamin Crump told reporters that Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, changed his opinion after listening to a cleaned up version of the recording, but prosecutors last week told Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson that they knew of no cleaned up version.'

-"Owen is a courtroom veteran, but in his analysis of the voice on that 911 recording used a new software program he had developed. He removed all other sound from the recording, except for the cries for help, and using biometrics, compared it to a recording of Zimmerman's voice and concluded it was not him. Owen came to no conclusion about who it was."

Unless its a FBI conspiracy it seems the recording is worthless for analysis.:mrgreen:

So the prosecution knows of no clean up version, interesting.

Owens says he determined its not Z, but then made no determination of who it was. Its a conspiracy I tell you, who was the unidentifed third peson on the tape:mrgreen:

In the end what we have is Z saying its him yelling for help. We have two voice experts(?) who one says he can't determine its TM and the other saying it is of a younger person. Then we have the FBI saying the tape quality is worthless for analysis.

Think I will go with Z and the FBI on this one. (reasonable doubt for the other).

Too lazy to really go searching for it, but other experts have called out owens and the expert that said it was a younger voice. I seem to recall it being something along the lines of them reaching this conclusion specifically for advertising purposes (to get their name out there) and called it naive analysis- or something similar...

But.. maybe the defense is just doing this to get some additoinal information on the experts the state will use... Maybe they are really doing this in the hope of having expert testimony inadmissable so they save money.. I have no real idea.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but I've testified over 20x in court most as LE later as an "expert" and it just doesn't work that way. The defense can't question the technology in front of the jury with out "losing" them in the minitiua. The defense also needs to find out what rattles the experts most. They will still be able to do what you suggested in front of the jury but with information gleaned from a private hearing. This case could well hinge on who the jury believes "that" voice belongs too.


Why must this be a separate hearing? So-called experts have been taken apart on the witness stand quite often.

This could backfire. If the judge rules that the people testifying are experts, if the defense tries to take them apart on the stand, the prosecution can point to the fact that a thorough hearing was held on the subject and the judge determined they qualified as experts.

If I were the attorney, I would wait, get my ducks in a row, and rip into them on the witness stand during the trial -- along with finding better-qualified people to contradict their testimony. But that's just me.
 
I tend to agree with you. The defense has a strong witness with the FBI.



The FBI ruled out that its George's voice..

Maybe the defense should hire their own "experts".
 
I'm not a lawyer, but I've testified over 20x in court most as LE later as an "expert" and it just doesn't work that way. The defense can't question the technology in front of the jury with out "losing" them in the minitiua. The defense also needs to find out what rattles the experts most. They will still be able to do what you suggested in front of the jury but with information gleaned from a private hearing. This case could well hinge on who the jury believes "that" voice belongs too.

That makes sense. Thanks.
 
:laughat:
The FBI ruled out that its George's voice..

Maybe the defense should hire their own "experts".
No they didn't sharon.
 
In a new motion, defense attorney Mark O'Mara wrote that those unnamed experts may be using phony science, so the judge should hold a hearing, listen to evidence about how they did their work then decide whether to allow them to testify at Zimmerman's trial.

No way a judge will rule on allowing an expert to testify at trial. It will create a horrible precedence.
 
The FBI ruled out that its George's voice..

Maybe the defense should hire their own "experts".


no, the FBI stated that the tape was of poor quality to conduct an analyses.
so unless you link to the FBI statement that backs yours up. I will go with what I read about the voice analysis.

It is interesting how you spin information.

Let me quote the paper once again for you: "FBI audio experts tried to analyze the recording but gave up, saying the quality of the recording was too poor."

So is it your contention these "experts" are better than the FBI experts? That they have better equipment?
 
No way a judge will rule on allowing an expert to testify at trial. It will create a horrible precedence.

Clearly you have no clue as to what you speak.
 
The FBI ruled out that its George's voice..

Maybe the defense should hire their own "experts".



No they didn't. My god, man.

FBI audio experts tried to analyze the recording but gave up, saying the quality of the recording was too poor.

I am dying to know how someone that follows this case as close as you can be wrong on so much... It really boggles my mind.
 
Why must this be a separate hearing? So-called experts have been taken apart on the witness stand quite often.

This could backfire. If the judge rules that the people testifying are experts, if the defense tries to take them apart on the stand, the prosecution can point to the fact that a thorough hearing was held on the subject and the judge determined they qualified as experts.

If I were the attorney, I would wait, get my ducks in a row, and rip into them on the witness stand during the trial -- along with finding better-qualified people to contradict their testimony. But that's just me.

It doesn't work like that. IF the judge agrees to allow the testimony - ie qualified as expert - the defense can still challenge it to the jury. Generally, when a judge so rules the judge actually is saying he/she will allow the jury to decide. The question isn't whether the witness is an expert anyway, but whether their scientific method is allowed to be presented.

For example, a brain surgeon would qualify as an expert, but a judge probably would not allow any presentation of evidence that he knows the defendant is guilty because he measured the shape of the defendant's head and that proves he is the murderous type. When it comes to technology, now and then courts have to decide whether they will accept it a competent - ever - or not. As example, many people in the past were convicted on crude expert hair analysis in methods later proven erroneous.

Probably the perfect example is that while a person may qualify as an expert in police interrogations, a judge would grant a pre-trial motion to not allow that expert to mention anything about a polygraph test that was given that was failed, nor allow a defense expert to mentiong a polygraph was passed - because courts do not accept the scientific validity of polygraphs to be within an acceptable range of accuracy in light of the strict burden of proof. In Zimmerman's instance, it appears that is the argument the defense is making about the scientific process used by the expert - not challenging the title of "expert" itself.
 
Clearly you have no clue as to what you speak.

Oh look, another one-sentence personal attack by Excon:lol:

Yes, I may be unaware of something in <Florida> law, as I have never lived there nor had any interest in their law before this case.

I am only familiar with Objecting to Expert Testimony at Trial, not in a pre-trial motion.

Care to add something constructive to your attack?
 
Oh look, another one-sentence personal attack by Excon
:doh
Oh look, someone who thinks speaking factually that they haven't a clue (that they even admit), is now somehow a personal attack.
Ridiculous.
It isn't an attack. Learn the difference.


Yes, I may be unaware of something in <Florida> law, as I have never lived there nor had any interest in their law before this case.
:doh
Then why would you speak definitively when you do not know?

That is a very ridiculous thing to do. How in the world do you expect to back up your claim when you don't know?
You just trying to wing it like you usually do?
 
:doh
Oh look, someone who thinks speaking factually that they haven't a clue (that they even admit), is now somehow a personal attack.
Ridiculous.
It isn't an attack. Learn the difference.


:doh
Then why would you speak definitively when you do not know?

That is a very ridiculous thing to do. How in the world do you expect to back up your claim when you don't know?
You just trying to wing it like you usually do?

Clearly:lol:

But enough of me.

Any precedence of a judge not allowing an expert witness to even testify at trial? I am familiar with objecting to expert testimony at trial, but not objecting to the expert witness pre-trial. To me it does not exist, even after conducting a google search.

Again, care to give me a clue?
 
Attorneys for murder suspect George Zimmerman are challenging the scientific validity of state voice recognition experts.
In a new motion, defense attorney Mark O'Mara wrote that those unnamed experts may be using phony science, so the judge should hold a hearing, listen to evidence about how they did their work then decide whether to allow them to testify at Zimmerman's trial.

George Zimmerman attorneys: State voice experts may be using phony science - OrlandoSentinel.com

Based on what I know of the voice analysis done in the public realm (Owen and Primeau), anyway, this seems appropriate.

If it's Zimmerman, O'Mara said it shows that the night watchman was the one under attack "and documents his story completely -- it also documents his injuries." If, however, it's 17-year-old Trayvon Martin's voice on the recording, then it could show Zimmerman was "acting in a very aggressive way toward him," O'Mara said.

O'Mara told In Session correspondent Jean Casarez that witnesses for the prosecution and the defense can't seem to agree. So, he wants to have a hearing to decide if anyone should be able to testify about the voice at all.

Should jurors be able to decide for themselves whom they hear on the call?

Cries for help: Is it Zimmerman or Trayvon? | HLNtv.com

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/mot_for_evidentiary_hearing.pdf

The Orlando Sentinel really gives no information on these motions, just speculation and BS:lol:

Mark O'Mara is CLEARLY fishing again, asking the court to determine if the prosecution's experts meet the "frye" standard, as in Frye v. United States (1923).

Also, he is arguing, if it is indeed Trayvon screaming, it will create unfair prejudice toward his client, and wants voice recognition experts prevented from testifying at trial...gee I wonder why:lamo
 
Cries for help: Is it Zimmerman or Trayvon? | HLNtv.com

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/mot_for_evidentiary_hearing.pdf

The Orlando Sentinel really gives no information on these motions, just speculation and BS:lol:

Mark O'Mara is CLEARLY fishing again, asking the court to determine if the prosecution's experts meet the "frye" standard, as in Frye v. United States (1923).

Also, he is arguing, if it is indeed Trayvon screaming, it will create unfair prejudice toward his client, and wants voice recognition experts prevented from testifying at trial...gee I wonder why:lamo

JF, what is your take of the FBI saying the tape is such poor quality, it basically can't be analyzed?
 
Clearly:lol:

But enough of me.

Any precedence of a judge not allowing an expert witness to even testify at trial? I am familiar with objecting to expert testimony at trial, but not objecting to the expert witness pre-trial. To me it does not exist, even after conducting a google search.

Again, care to give me a clue?
Double :doh
iLOL
You make a claim and then want me to prove it untrue?
Figures! That is so typical of those on your side.


Which is really strange considering your post that followed the above.
You had the motion, all you had to do was follow through with the specific laws.

It really takes a special train of thought to not realize that such preliminary examinations are more than possible.



Even when you remove witness 6 because of his later retraction, you have, besides immediate recognition by family, neighbors that identified the screams as Zimmerman's.





Also, he is arguing, if it is indeed Trayvon screaming, it will create unfair prejudice toward his client, and wants voice recognition experts prevented from testifying at trial...gee I wonder why:lamo
No that is not what he is arguing.
 
Double :doh
iLOL
You make a claim and then want me to prove it untrue?
Figures! That is so typical of those on your side.


Which is really strange considering your post that followed the above.
You had the motion, all you had to do was follow through with the specific laws.

It really takes a special train of thought to not realize that such preliminary examinations are more than possible.



No that is not what he is arguing.

I hadn't seen the Jharvis quote before..> Was that the one that was willing to swear on a stack of bibles that it was Trayvon's screams?
 
JF, what is your take of the FBI saying the tape is such poor quality, it basically can't be analyzed?

AFAIK the feds will not be called to the stand for their statement. The statement itself is of no use without the specifics and a representative from the FBI.

O'Mara failed to obtain their evidence, which he intended to use at trial. This led to his most recent motion, as it would have saved more $$$ for Zimmerman's appetite.
 
I hadn't seen the Jharvis quote before..> Was that the one that was willing to swear on a stack of bibles that it was Trayvon's screams?
I hadn't seen it either. I stumbled upon it today.
I was actually in shock that we now have two family members basically saying (initially) that it wasn't Trayvon.
And I had also forgotten about the reports of the two neighbors.

Combine this with everything else we know, of course it was Zimmerman screaming.
 
I hadn't seen it either. I stumbled upon it today.
I was actually in shock that we now have two family members basically saying (initially) that it wasn't Trayvon.
And I had also forgotten about the reports of the two neighbors.

Combine this with everything else we know, of course it was Zimmerman screaming.

Which is why the defense wants to prevent all audio experts from testifying...:lamo
 
Which is why the defense wants to prevent all audio experts from testifying...:lamo
You really don't have a clue do you?
Those so-called audio experts are discredited by what they themselves say is required to analyze the scream.
Even the FBI analyst can say that.

That means they are worthless as evidence of who the screams came from, and only serve to confuse, and unjustly bias a jury.
That is why they should be excluded.
 
Back
Top Bottom