Retreat at Twin Lakes Clubhouse Videos

[nomatter_nevermind]

But that's how those guys make their living, as 'expert witnesses,' so courts have accepted their testimony on a fairly regular basis.

I don't know how Owens and Primeau make their livings. But the issue isn't the person, it's the methodology.

I wouldn't doubt Owens has often testified in cases with adequate voice samples for accepted methods to be used. That's not so in this case, so Owens had to resort to experimental methods. These methods have been accepted in court only once, in Connecticut, not Florida. This is according to Owen himself, in a 4/2/12 interview with Lawrence O'Donnell.

I have to give O'Donnell credit for raising the admissibility issue, although he tried to spin it his way. It's the only time I recall it being mentioned in the MSM.

[RickyJim]

None of these differences really make a difference. I don't know why you're hung up about them.

You seem to be making conclusions about whether one car or two went by, and in what direction depending on the sequence of lights appearing in different cameras.  I would think this would depend on the relationship between the different shutter times and speed or the cars.  Have you worked out what lights would fire in which order for the four possibilities of cars going in either direction on TTL and RVC?  And just what conclusions are you certain of from all this work besides Zimmerman didn't park at the clubhouse in the spot he said he did on the reenactment?

[DebFrmHell]

So you think there was another squad there BEFORE that, like before the fight started??

CONSPIRACY! The cops were in on the shooting! (What's your handle on FLLB?)

Without being rude...Where am I missing that Smith came down TTL and not RVC?  Can you link back to that please?  TIA.

[RickyJim]

I wouldn't doubt Owens has often testified in cases with adequate voice samples for accepted methods to be used. That's not so in this case, so Owens had to resort to experimental methods. These methods have been accepted in court only once, in Connecticut, not Florida. This is according to Owen himself, in a 4/2/12 interview with Lawrence O'Donnell.

I have to give O'Donnell credit for raising the admissibility issue, although he tried to spin it his way. It's the only time I recall it being mentioned in the MSM.

Owen never has testified in court, and never will, about comparing a scream with a normal voice sample to determine if they came from the same person.  Let alone the fact the FBI says that original 9-11 call exemplar isn't good enough for comparing with anything.  The only one who made any sense on that program about the audio was Charles Blow who cast doubt on the entire enterprise.

[whonoze]

Without being rude...Where am I missing that Smith came down TTL and not RVC?  Can you link back to that please?  TIA.

I don't know what TIA stands for (other than Transient Ischemic Attack).

There is no official documentation of Smith's route. His woefully wretched written report only states that he parked in front of W19's home on RVC. However, his path can be deduced from the response times listed in the police reports, the squad car passing the EPH, W3s 911 call, and W18 and W6s 911 calls. Had he gone directly down RVC he would have arrived at the site of the shooting much sooner than he did.

I certainly don't consider your query rude, but I fail to see how Smith's route is a matter of controversy.

[whonoze]

You seem to be making conclusions about whether one car or two went by, and in what direction depending on the sequence of lights appearing in different cameras.  I would think this would depend on the relationship between the different shutter times and speed or the cars.

Not really. If you scan through the videos in fast forward the directionality is obvious.

And just what conclusions are you certain of from all this work besides Zimmerman didn't park at the clubhouse in the spot he said he did on the reenactment?

**sigh** I'm too tired to type it all out now. Maybe later...

[nomatter_nevermind]

But that's how those guys make their living, as 'expert witnesses,' so courts have accepted their testimony on a fairly regular basis. . . . I doubt a study by Owen (or similar) would be ruled inadmissable

The level of critical reasoning on display here, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the methods used in the making of the video.

[nomatter_nevermind]

I don't know what TIA stands for

'Thanks In Advance'

[TalkLeft]

I don't know how Owens and Primeau make their livings. But the issue isn't the person, it's the methodology.

I wouldn't doubt Owens has often testified in cases with adequate voice samples for accepted methods to be used. That's not so in this case, so Owens had to resort to experimental methods. These methods have been accepted in court only once, in Connecticut, not Florida. This is according to Owen himself, in a 4/2/12 interview with Lawrence O'Donnell.

I have to give O'Donnell credit for raising the admissibility issue, although he tried to spin it his way. It's the only time I recall it being mentioned in the MSM.

I discussed the admissibility, the methodology and detailed the CT case here. The CT case is quite  different. For one thing, the defendant was pro se and probably didn't know how to mount an effective challenge. For another, there was DNA evidence --her DNA was found in a blood stain on a bathroom sink handle in the victim's condo.  And for yet another, the software he used is new and he is apparently the owner of it. See my post.

I've worked with Owen, he was my expert for the audio/video in McVeigh (the OKC bombing case.) I spent many hours/days at his office in New York as he analyzed audio and video. I like him personally. But I don't put any stock in the biometric analysis he did at the request of the Orlando Sentinel. He wasn't working off the original, and  you can't compare a scream to speaking voice and as the FBI experts said in Zimmerman, the quality of the original is just too poor to make any comparison.

[whonoze]

We're getting OT here, but I think my comment on the audiologists was misunderstood. I don't think what either Primeau or Owen did for the Sentinal is worth beans. As IANAL, I can't say that as a judge I would rule their testimony inadmissible. But as someone who knows a lot about audio, I am confident that as a defense council I could rip any testimony similar to what they offered the OS into teeny tiny shreds on cross.

So my post was not an endorsement of either fellow, merely my admittedly anecdotal impression of how well the legal system seems to adhere to rigorous scientific standards in the category of expert testimony (i.e. not very).

And as I said, I doubt the prosecution will call any voice analysis expert. They don't have to. They have GZ "Help me! Help me!" exemplar recording whch is so obviously different from the screams on W3's 911 that no expert testimony is required for the jury to draw conclusions from it.

[DebFrmHell]

I don't know what TIA stands for (other than Transient Ischemic Attack).

There is no official documentation of Smith's route. His woefully wretched written report only states that he parked in front of W19's home on RVC. However, his path can be deduced from the response times listed in the police reports, the squad car passing the EPH, W3s 911 call, and W18 and W6s 911 calls. Had he gone directly down RVC he would have arrived at the site of the shooting much sooner than he did.

I certainly don't consider your query rude, but I fail to see how Smith's route is a matter of controversy.

I don't consider it to be a controversy except for the fact you are making an assumption that is not true.
He says that he "responded to 2831 Retreat View Circle and exited my marked Sanford police vehicle and began to canvas the area."  I would think that is pretty concise, not a "woefully wretched written report."

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf
page 14

ETA:  Link.  Sorry I forgot.

[whonoze]

To get back to stuff that's in the video, I want to note that the security footage is only part of it. There's also a lot of evidence that comes from synching the NEN and 911 calls to the video, and to each other. One little bit I find interesting:
At 7:18:39 JohnW6 tells the 911 operator "There's two guys in the backyard with flashlights." This more than a minute before Smith arrives on scene and arrests GZ. So we know one of the guys with a flashlight is W13. The only other person there is Zimmerman. His 'tactical' flashlight wasn't working. So he had to be using his mini-key-chain light. Which means he dropped it at the T AFTER the struggle, probably because he didn't want anything in his hands when he surrendered to the officer... And there goes the one piece of physical evidence supporting the idea that the physical struggle began at the T. (Now, you're not going to question John's powers of observation, are you .)

[DebFrmHell]

Whonoze, have you looked over the transcript that a business associate of Jeralyn's did for her concerning the audio transcript of the NEN?

It is interesting and I think you might like reading it...or maybe not.  Who knows?  8-)
http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/alternatetranscript.pdf

The one thing I don't understand about your compilation is all of the UTurns.  You have one on RVC early on and one or two others on TTL.  ((Sorry working from memory))  In the lower screen, you have the truck making a solid U-turn every time.  Considering the turning radius for a truck that size and the width of the street, I would think a three point turn would be more appropriate or accurate.

[RickyJim]

They don't have to. They have GZ "Help me! Help me!" exemplar recording whch is so obviously different from the screams on W3's 911 that no expert testimony is required for the jury to draw conclusions from it.

Are you saying that the jury will conclude that that exemplar proves that Zimmerman wasn't the person screaming on the 9/11 call?  The FBI had the exemplar and didn't make such a conclusion.  Only through extreme incompetence on the part of the defense would the jury be allowed to make such a comparison. 

[RickyJim]

At 7:18:39 JohnW6 tells the 911 operator "There's two guys in the backyard with flashlights." This more than a minute before Smith arrives on scene and arrests GZ. So we know one of the guys with a flashlight is W13. The only other person there is Zimmerman. His 'tactical' flashlight wasn't working. So he had to be using his mini-key-chain light. Which means he dropped it at the T AFTER the struggle, probably because he didn't want anything in his hands when he surrendered to the officer... And there goes the one piece of physical evidence supporting the idea that the physical struggle began at the T. (Now, you're not going to question John's powers of observation, are you .)

Is your claim is that Zimmerman ran back up to the T to drop the keychain there?  Strange that nobody mentioned it.  He could have just put it in his pocket.  I would more readily believe that John only saw one flashlight and misspoke rather than believe anything as bizarre as what you are saying.