It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording,

This is some sick twisted attempt at trying to justify Trayvon being murdered.

 

Let me fill your plate for you, and your blank:





Your apology is accepted; evidence of your paralysis is noted.

 

You actually moved the goal posts a third time. Here is the replay:

1. "There is no such thing as voice prints!" When I proved voice prints exist you say:

2. "There are no definitive voice prints!" When i proved those exist you then change it to say:

3. "There are no voice prints used as sole identification in a criminal trial!" So I linked a murder case where the accused was identified by voice print.....

Don't worry about moving the goalposts again....I'm not wasting more time on this simply because you refuse to admit you have been proven wrong.

 

The running away makes some sense. The hood doesn't.

If he ran and didn't attack Zimmerman, then Zimmerman is a murderer who hunted down Martin and shot him.

If Martin came back and attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was only acting in self-defense and is guilty of nothing.

It really does come down to how the altercation occurred. Unless the prosecution can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's story is a lie and that he actually hunted down Martin, Zimmerman will walk.

 

but are you aware of the implications there?

If I start a fight with someone and then kill them...I can just shout "SELF DEFENSE AND I HAVE THE INJURIES TO PROVE IT!!!"

And no one can say otherwise...

because he's dead.

 

The alternative is to take away the ability of people to defend themselves from attack.

 

NO, sorry. You posted the OPINION of people who SELF INTERESTS are in promoting voice ID; I posted the STATEMENT of a pre-eminent expert in the field, who is honest enough to be truthful about the technology, which is NOWHERE NEAR the level of fingerprinting and DNA, as you attempt to claim.


This is why many states DO NOT ALLOW voice data as ADMIISSABLE in COURT. There is NO SUCH THING AS A "VOICE PRINT"; IOW, a sample of your voice that will prove to be your under all circumstances, as opposed to FINGERPRINTS and DNA< which "stress", and other factors, DO NOT EFFECT.


You listed ONE murder case where the accused was "identified" by the SAME GUY who FAILED to INDENTIFY HER before, using the same sample. Her attorney will eat that for lunch. That would not be the case with fingerprints or DNA samples.

To pretend that the random results that current voice comparison technology produces is "thrre times more accurate than fingerprints" (YOUR claim), is absolute nonsense.

 

Maybe, in addition to other datam under pretty strict criteria....as Florida is one of the states adhering to what is called the "Frye vs" criteria for novel scientific evidence:


Interpretation of Frye:

Where novel scientific evidence is at issue, the Frye inquiry allows the judiciary to defer to scientific expertise precisely as to whether or not it has gained "general acceptance" in the relevant field. The trial court's gatekeeper role in this respect is conservative, thus helping to keep "pseudoscience" out of the courtroom.


http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/425/lecture02.htm

Here's current "general acceptance" of voice ID tech:


The present state of the art indicates that voiceprints cannot provide identificationswith 100% accuracy; thus, the technique will be controversial
within the scientific community for some time. However, any
potential dangers posed by the failure of voiceprint identifications to
render 100% reliable results can be guarded against by imposing
conditions upon their admission.

http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/26/decker.pdf?rd=1


That DOES NOT MEET "Frye vs" standards, so, at this time, I'd have to say NO, probably not.

 

Wiseman say never argue with large dinosaur with big mouth, sharp teeth, and small brain.

 

Evidently, you haven't seen me in "Land of the Lost"....with my "walnut sized brain"...except that the walnuts are about 4' X 3'....


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMEnTUrufw"]Land Of The Lost ( T- Rex ) - YouTube[/ame]

 

I posted several links from experts showing voice prints are used for positive identification

As for her lawyer eating that for lunch.......the defendant has already been convicted and sentenced.

And I only needed to show one case to prove your claim wrong.

Every time you moved the goalposts I still proved it was true and you still deny it. Sad.

 

Yes:

2.&#8195; Unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other
unique physical representation;
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0800-0899/0817/Sections/0817.568.html

But let's keep it a secret so others don't find out voice prints exist.....

 

Your "one case" had your "EXPERT" contradicting HIS OWN PREVIOUS CONCLUSION. Der....

The State of Florida only accepts novel science data as ADMISSABLE according to the "Frye vs" standard, which voice comparison tech DOES NOT MEET, at this time.



Maybe, in addition to other datam under pretty strict criteria....as Florida is one of the states adhering to what is called the "Frye vs" criteria for novel scientific evidence:


Interpretation of Frye:

Where novel scientific evidence is at issue, the Frye inquiry allows the judiciary to defer to scientific expertise precisely as to whether or not it has gained "general acceptance" in the relevant field. The trial court's gatekeeper role in this respect is conservative, thus helping to keep "pseudoscience" out of the courtroom.


http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/425/lecture02.htm

Here's current "general acceptance" of voice ID tech:


The present state of the art indicates that voiceprints cannot provide identificationswith 100% accuracy; thus, the technique will be controversial
within the scientific community for some time. However, any
potential dangers posed by the failure of voiceprint identifications to
render 100% reliable results can be guarded against by imposing
conditions upon their admission.

http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/...ecker.pdf?rd=1


So your "one case" , where the "expert" managed to contradict this OWN FINDINGS, demonstrates why it is NOT ADMISSABLE, in most states, and why the trainer of voice recog for the Secret Service and FBI, says there IS NO SUCH THING AS A "VOICE PRINT", just the OPINION of the person doing the testing.
It is NOT reliable enough to pass muster under the Frye standard.

 

It is extremely easy to prove Z lied in his statement even without using Trayvon's girlfriend as a witness. It will be her testimony that will guarantee the indictment but simple math proves Z lied.

 

Voice prints DO NOT EXIST as admissable evidence in MOST STATES, including Florida. hey do not exist AT ALL,in any reliable form, according to the trainer in voice recog tech for the Secret Service and FBI, that "idiot"...you called her.

In the ONE CASE you can cite it being allowed, the "expert' had to CONTRADICT HIS OWN PREVIOUS FINDING to "ID" the suspect= WHY it is inadmissable as evidence in any state adhering to the Frye standard for admissable "novel science".

Keep pretending that Voice ID tech is "more accurate than fingerprints"...then find us the states that DO NOT ALLOW FINGERPRINTS AS ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE.


Der.....when you keep banging your head against the wall, does it ever stop hurting...? Der....

 

I stopped reading your post with the very first sentence because the expert did not contradict his own findings. Had you read the link you would have seen earlier results were inconclusive because the technology at that time were insufficient but the latest software provided the necessary scientific evidence to confirm a positive voice print.

I've given more than enough links so if anyone else doubts voice prints exist let me know.

 

Facing the actual Truth is a real problem for you, isn't it?

Finding the OPPOSITE conclusion than one found before IS "contradicting one's own findings", outside of Leftninny Goofyworld, anyway.

Lot's of people "doubt voice prints" as evidence in court, INCLUDING THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

Der....

 

Let's let others decide which of us is presenting accurate information because you obviously don't know Florida was one of the first states to recognize voice prints as admissible evidence and in Florida.......you guessed it!!!! Voice prints qualify as DIRECT evidence for identification:

The third District Court of Appeals of Florida did not limit the admission of spectrograph evidence
to corroborative status. In the Alea opinion the court does not mention the Frye test as the
standard to be used for admission, but rather states that "such testimony is admissible to
establish the identity of a suspect as direct and positive proof, although its probative value is a
question for the jury".
http://www.experts.com/Articles/Voi...-Aural-Spectrographic-Method-By-Thomas-J-Owen

So guess what. The DA will be using the voice print to prove it was not Z screaming....

 

I just posted a link proving Florida does accept voice prints and also allows them to be used to identify people without any other evidence..........

 

Who shoots someone, a kid! that is crying out for help?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj4RHJ0taoc&feature=player_embedded"]Trayvon Martin 911 Tape Screaming &quot;Help&quot; - YouTube[/ame]
.