Don't think this is how the "stand your ground law" works

[DaveTN]

I'm sure DaveTN believes those experts and I'm equally sure that, at least in his mind, once he's made up his mind them then no one else should dare to reach a different conclusion or even wait to see if additional information comes out.

Really Robert, have we really reduced this down to personal attacks? I don’t think anyone that is following this thread has any doubt who is discussing the issues and who is simply attacking me because my views are not in line with theirs. If we have reduced it down to personal attacks, okay….You are being childish and immature because my views don’t align with yours. You are pathetic.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You're right. All those places look the same to me

Racist!

[RobertNashville]

That could be true of anything. George Zimmerman does not dispute he shot an unarmed 17 year old kid...

Let's put this in prespective, shall we.

This "kid" was over 6' tall.

This "kid" was less than 12 months away from being an adult in the eyes of the law.

This "kid", if he committed a serious crime would almost certainly be tried AS an adult.

This "kid" may well have been the aggressor...this "kid' may well have started the physical confrontation...he may well have been acting suspicious (and not just "walking home" as his family want's to tell it) and he may have had many opportunities to avoid any physical confrontation and go home.

This "kid" was "unarmed" in terms of having a firearm but that does not mean he couldn't kill or cause serious; life-threatening injury to another man.

The "kid" may have reached for or for a moment even had control of Zimmerman's weapon (if you believe at least one of the witnesses).

This "kid" may be as pure as the driven snow in all this...he may even be the sweet little boy his family and the opportunists (Sharpton, Jackson, and the rest) make him out to be and Zimmerman may be as guilty as hell and ought to be sent there quickly.

However, you absolutely DON'T KNOW who is innocent and who isn't and neither do I.

That an ex-cop can be so damn certain of something he doesn't and can't know s**t about is truly remarkable...it's also disturbing in that it makes me wonder just how many cops are out there who think they have it all figured out before they even arrive on a crime scene.

Edited April 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Really Robert, have we really reduced this down to personal attacks?

Actually, I think you did that some time ago. However, if you really think what I wrote was a "personal attack" then I disagree...I disagree because my comments that you call a personal attack can be supported; I can cite examples from this thread where you have ignored information that doesn't support your opinion about this incident and I can cite examples of where you have attacked those who have disagreed with your position. Since I can cite those examples then my comments become a reasonable statement based on observation.

I don’t think anyone that is following this thread has any doubt who is discussing the issues and who is simply attacking me because my views are not in line with theirs.

If people have a closed mind about it then such an analysis is worthless. However, If they haven an open mind then I'm not worried about what they would conclude.

If we have reduced it down to personal attacks, okay….You are being childish and immature because my views don’t align with yours. You are pathetic.

You probably should remove all mirrors from the room before you write a post like that because I think you are looking into one as you type and confused as to who you are talking about. Edited April 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

Racist!

Cracker!

[DaveTN]

However, Mr. ex-cop, you DON'T KNOW who is innocent and who isn't.

That an ex-cop can be so damn certain of something he doesn't know s**t about is truly remarkable.

That an ex-cop can be so damn certain of something he doesn't know s**t about is also truly disturbing - it makes me wonder just how many real cops are out there who think they have it all figured out before they even arrive on a crime scene.

How long do I have to put up with this Physco’s BS.

[RobertNashville]

How long do I have to put up with this Physco’s BS.

A few posts ago and directed specifically at me, you said ".....I think you want to believe that you can take your gun out and kill anymore that scares you" essentially accusing me of being a murderer want-a-be (or maybe a double-naught spy with a license to kill)...now I'm a "Physco"???

Who was it just complaining about ad hominem attacks.

* REF:

...

Edited April 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Erik88]

How long do I have to put up with this Physco’s BS.

......

Mike is right, not worth it.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Erik88

[mikegideon]

Would you guys please take it down a little? This ain't over yet, and I would hate to see the thread locked.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

audio enhancement and human analysis = put it through a mixer, play with it until it sounds like what you want it to.

Valid voiceprint analysis is possible, but it would require the original tapes, rather than the compressed, digitized files available through the internet.

I don't claim expertise in any field, but do make my money with audio and dsp programming. Would expect Mike Gideon much closer to expert on the topic. I would also need some convincing before believing a voiceprint analysis. If allowed in court as evidence, however, guess if the expert can snow likely non-technical jurors then that is all that matters?

The 911 calls are available for download from the police dept's website, and are in WAV format. Some wav formats are compressed, but from the size I assumed them to be 16 bit uncompressed pcm. Ought to look at em again if they are still on my puter. It is doubtful that they were originally recorded un compressed, so about all one could say about the wav files is you don't lose extra fidelity with another layer of compression after they edited the for-release audio to squelch name and address info of the callers.

With so much ram and hard drive recording nowadays, what does it do to the concept of "original tapes" or "original evidence"? Ten years ago when I had time to do it, a few times I cleaned up little hidden tape recorder surveillance audio for lawyers. The average quality of those recordings was so bad that there wasn't much that could be done in many cases. Spectral processing is kinda odd-- If audio quality is above a certain threshold, it can almost work miracles, but once the quality dips below a certain point, well maybe NASA could do something with it but I never could.

But anyway the lawyers would present snips of the cleaned audio played from CD (if allowed) and they also had the "original tape" which could be reviewed if the cleaned up audio was challenged. But in a digital recording system, what is the "original tape"? Do they have to pull the hard drive and bring in the original hard drive or ram stick that was the first copy?

If evidence really would hinge on a single word, then it would be possible with static processing in some cases, and definitely possible with dynamic processing to change the sound of a syllable and change a word, in the process of "cleaning it up". Without actually manually editing selected regions of the audio.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Oh Shoot]

Would you guys please take it down a little? This ain't over yet, and I would hate to see the thread locked.

And don't misspell psycho -- and some of us are proud of our heritage, so that's Psycho American to you Dave.

- OS

[Lumber_Jack]

And don't misspell psycho -- and some of us are proud of our heritage, so that's Psycho American to you Dave.

- OS

I like physcho's (fyscos?)

[mikegideon]

Lester,

i would think they ARE uncompressed. Bear in mind, it doesn't have to be full bandwidth, since none of the audio is. I took my stuff to 10khz, but onle because it's easy with analog. I figure 2 ways lop off at 5 or 6 khz, and phones at 3k. So, the sampling rate could be under 20k.

[mikegideon]

And don't misspell psycho -- and some of us are proud of our heritage, so that's Psycho American to you Dave.

- OS

AKA Francis

[TMF]

Lester,

i would think they ARE uncompressed. Bear in mind, it doesn't have to be full bandwidth, since none of the audio is. I took my stuff to 10khz, but onle because it's easy with analog. I figure 2 ways lop off at 5 or 6 khz, and phones at 3k. So, the sampling rate could be under 20k.

You two are gonna make my brain lock before they get a chance to lock this thread... or at least make me feel kinda dumb.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester,

i would think they ARE uncompressed. Bear in mind, it doesn't have to be full bandwidth, since none of the audio is. I took my stuff to 10khz, but onle because it's easy with analog. I figure 2 ways lop off at 5 or 6 khz, and phones at 3k. So, the sampling rate could be under 20k.

Thanks Mike. Makes perfect sense. Had been reading about "consumer affordable" surveillance multi-channel digital camera+audio recorders that use compression and just assumed it would be a commonplace thing to do. Low bitrate uncompressed would certainly seem better for things that might be legal evidence, given the nature of the audio sources.

Speaking of "mission impossible", a fella told me about when he got hired to clean up a tape. It was about a 10th generation audio cassette copy of a sermon by some famous middle-eastern imam. The sermon had been delivered at a train station, with crowd noises, train noises, and also goats and chickens in the background.

[mikegideon]

Thanks Mike. Makes perfect sense. Had been reading about "consumer affordable" surveillance multi-channel digital camera+audio recorders that use compression and just assumed it would be a commonplace thing to do. Low bitrate uncompressed would certainly seem better for things that might be legal evidence, given the nature of the audio sources.

Speaking of "mission impossible", a fella told me about when he got hired to clean up a tape. It was about a 10th generation audio cassette copy of a sermon by some famous middle-eastern imam. The sermon had been delivered at a train station, with crowd noises, train noises, and also goats and chickens in the background.

I would just think that they would want to alter the audio as little as possible. I did a project that used mono wav files at an 8kHz sampling rate. No need to compress them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And don't misspell psycho -- and some of us are proud of our heritage, so that's Psycho American to you Dave.

- OS

Yeh! from a cracker.

[Guest Gwith40]

Hello, ladies and gentlemen.

I am new to the forum. I have been watching this case and I have to say I am quite disgusted with the coverage. The ramifications of this could be explosive. On the particular issue of the voice recognition, I did a bit of research and I found some interesting things about the "experts" involved and the organization to which they belong. I have to say I am shocked that these two gentlemen who claim to be voice experts would be allowed to testify in any court in this country.

First, google the address 2750 E. Sunshine, Springfield MO. You will find that this is the address for the American Board of Recorded Evidence. Unfortunately, it is also the address for the American college of wellness. In fact it is the address for a plethora of organizations. As best as I can determine, this is the location of a publisher named Dr O' Block, who is basically running a diploma mill. This guy has an interesting, if inflated background. Droblock.com. It turns out this O' Block is the Chairman Emeritus of this American Board of Recorded Evidence. It also turns out his wife is on the board. I am still researching the backgrounds of the two "experts" but it doesnt look like they are qualified to do anything in particular. I think the media has really stepped in it this time.

[mikegideon]

You may be right. The first guy is a history major.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I would just think that they would want to alter the audio as little as possible. I did a project that used mono wav files at an 8kHz sampling rate. No need to compress them.

Thanks Mike

I agree not wanting to color the audio, especially as it is already coming in from bad-quality phones and radios and should be preserved as best possible for whatever investigative processing they might want to try later on. Didn't know how much storage that police depts can afford to buy, or alternately how long they are required to archive old recordings before they can be purged.

If the data archiving does happen to get "too expensive" then they could save a little extra space with lossless data compression, though lossless compression ratios are not exactly spectacular.

You mentioned earlier about the data compression used by cellphones. Interesting idea. A cellphone lossy compression method might impart the codec's own "dynamic changing spectral signature" on the audio after it has been un-compressed and recorded to linear PCM? Maybe enough of a "signature" that it might POSSIBLY confound further spectral processing or analysis?

Edited April 2, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[mikegideon]

Data archiving is dirt cheap if they dump the wave files to a data DVD.

Cell phone codecs are horrible.

[Worriedman]

Anyone have a vacation scheduled to Orlando in the next few weeks?

Just got back. Actually went a little further down than Orlando, but was in and out of there a bunch. Awareness was heightened, by both the Police officers, and Citizens.

[CQB Elite]

I think you want to believe that you can take your gun out and kill anymore that scares you.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Maybe it doesn't read the way you intended it to. Maybe it does.

Zimmerman followed someone he thought suspicious who was wandering about the neighborhood. He had no prior knowledge of who this person was or exactly what he was up to. Zimmerman's behavior was not that of someone who is "scared". Scared people sit in their homes with the blinds closed and the TV up loud. Scared people do not follow a suspicious person to find out what they are doing or where they are going.

[Guest Gwith40]

Allright guys,

Let me give you a quote from another member of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, Steve Cain...."It is essential that speech samples contain exactly the same words and phrases as those in the questioned sample, because only identical speech sounds are used for comparison".

Mr Owen claimed this was not necessary, because of the equipment he used. It appears he happens to sell this equipment.

Mr. Primeau based his analysis on a 911 call posted on the Mother Jones website! Unbelievable. On top of this, he disavows his own conclusion at the end of his "analyis".

One young man is dead and another has his liberty on the line. I hope this case is decided on evidence and not some kind of voodoo.