On April 01 2012 20:50 Miyoshino wrote: lol it seems that in some states in the US you can carry a gun, follow someone around, call 9/11 because someone weas a hoody (such a bad US fashion trend), get told to stop doing paranoid schizophrenic shit by the 9/11 operator, follow him anyway, either start the fight yourself or provoke, take a hit, then pull out your gun and just kill him out of self defense.
If this law holds anyone who is smart can get away with first degree murder as long as he can get his victim into a fist fight.
This Zimmerman is either a complete fool and coward, mentally ill or deviously immoral and I am glad to see that when the justice system fails society is there to lay down the justice anyway. Basically everyone will see him as a famous murdered forever because the facts got out in the media and were blown up exactly because the police let him go.
On that note, there's something I've been wondering about for a few days -- if Zimmerman had been killed instead of Martin here, would Stand Your Ground apply? Or, like screamingpalm asked above, does it apply to Martin's right to defend himself in the (likely, imo) case that Zimmerman intimidated/assaulted him first? I understand that the law isn't being applied to Zimmerman's in-court defense, but it's the reason he wasn't arrested, correct? It seems like the question's come up & been skimmed over at least once, but I'm not sure I understand it completely.
I'm pretty confident that, whether it applies to Martin or not, he would have been arrested if the tables were turned -- call it a hunch. My issue with the SYG deal, as I understand it, is that it seems to protect the first person to use deadly force in a conflict, as long as the other person actually dies. At least, that's how it seems in this scenario.
Also, it's interesting seeing how many posts in this thread have tried to demonize either of the involved parties -- disparaging Martin for not being a complete "angel", or calling Zimmerman a depraved, cowardly racist, etc.; as far as I can tell, Martin seems to have been a fairly inoffensive teenager, and although Zimmerman may be reliably described as overzealous, temperamental, and possibly a bit troubled, he appears to be (generally) well-intentioned.
Sorry if I've missed something that's been said already.
After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.
"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.
The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.
"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.
Forensic voice identification is not a new or novel concept; in fact, a recent U.S. Department of Justice committee report notes that federal interest in the technology "has a history of nearly 70 years."
Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings.
He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion.
"I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming."
Given the Funeral Director's statement regarding the lack of bruises on Trayvon's body/hands, the lack of visible injuries or struggle in the video of Zimmerman in the police station, the distance Zimmerman wandered away from his car to pursue Trayvon, and two forensic experts saying that it was not Zimmerman screaming for help, and Zimmerman's past history of being overaggressive and overzealous,
I have serious doubts regarding Zimmerman's claims that Trayvon instigated a fight or posed a deadly threat to him.
All the news has to do is put the word expert in front of someone's name and 90% of the population flocks to them like they know something.
This is a guy that has some software and he runs a clip through it, that's it. He doesn't know or do anything special. He probably "enhances" the tape first, destroying the evidence he's trying to collect.
Besides. I wouldn't think I would need to point out that comparing someone's hushed 911 conversation and someone screaming for fear of their life would be an exercise in futility anyway. I cannot see, even if they are the same person, how any software or analysis would be able to tell the similarities in distant screams for help versus a 911 call in a somewhat normal tone.
Yeah, you can try to sell me on how his voice has similar traits, regardless of his tone, pitch, or volume, but I'm not buying it, and neither does the court system.
Hell, the second "expert" you quoted says the technologies involved aren't for use in the courtroom. Means he knows it isn't accurate enough for it to be used definitively.
do you know why we call experts "whores" in the legal profession?
edit:
so, apparently, there are not many people in this field. in my experience, its usually a field that is not tested and unreliable. or its a highly specialized field with very few that can do it. im going to lean towards the former in this case.
"Thomas J. Owen, an internationally renowned forensics expert and witness, is one of only a handful of experts in the emerging field of digital media forensics."
That's funny. In the medical profession, we call lawyers "whores".
They guy seems to have good credentials, and the article even goes on to cite how his analysis has had precendent in a previous case. The other expert also came to the same conclusion using different methods. By definition, an expert is a minority in their field, you call in the expert because they have the unique experience in the field. And even the link you edited in has other multiple examples of his expertise in use in legal matters (though before your edit, that was an absolutely terrible and inflamatory post). The guys credentials seem pretty legit as well as his past testimonies. Discrediting him because not a lot of people go into that field(its understandable that forensic audio and video analysis is not a field people aspire to be in and join in droves) seems to insult his time spent in the field. Making assumptions about the field based on the number of people in it isn't really a good argument, maybe if you used actual evidence that it is untested and unreliable you would have a point.
The road to admissibility of voice identification evidence in the courts of the United States has not been without its potholes. Many courts have had to rule on this issue without having access to all the facts. Trial strategies and budgets have resulted in incomplete pictures for the courts. To compound the problem, courts have utilized different standards of admission resulting in different opinions as to the admissibility of voice identification evidence. Even those courts which have claimed to use the same standard of admissibility have interpreted it in a variety of ways resulting in a lack of consistency. Although many courts have denied admission to voice identification evidence, none of the courts excluding the spectrographic evidence have found the technique unreliable. Exclusion has always been based on the fact that the evidence presented did not present a clear picture of the technique's acceptance in the scientific community and as such, the court was reluctant to rely on that evidence. The majority of courts hearing the issue have admitted spectrographic voice identification evidence.
After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams.
"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.
The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.
"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.
Forensic voice identification is not a new or novel concept; in fact, a recent U.S. Department of Justice committee report notes that federal interest in the technology "has a history of nearly 70 years."
Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings.
He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion.
"I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming."
Given the Funeral Director's statement regarding the lack of bruises on Trayvon's body/hands, the lack of visible injuries or struggle in the video of Zimmerman in the police station, the distance Zimmerman wandered away from his car to pursue Trayvon, and two forensic experts saying that it was not Zimmerman screaming for help, and Zimmerman's past history of being overaggressive and overzealous,
I have serious doubts regarding Zimmerman's claims that Trayvon instigated a fight or posed a deadly threat to him.
All the news has to do is put the word expert in front of someone's name and 90% of the population flocks to them like they know something.
This is a guy that has some software and he runs a clip through it, that's it. He doesn't know or do anything special. He probably "enhances" the tape first, destroying the evidence he's trying to collect.
Besides. I wouldn't think I would need to point out that comparing someone's hushed 911 conversation and someone screaming for fear of their life would be an exercise in futility anyway. I cannot see, even if they are the same person, how any software or analysis would be able to tell the similarities in distant screams for help versus a 911 call in a somewhat normal tone.
Yeah, you can try to sell me on how his voice has similar traits, regardless of his tone, pitch, or volume, but I'm not buying it, and neither does the court system.
Hell, the second "expert" you quoted says the technologies involved aren't for use in the courtroom. Means he knows it isn't accurate enough for it to be used definitively.
Eh, just because it's not used in courtrooms doesn't mean it isn't accurate enough. Courts have a real high treshold (as they should) with new technology but that in itself doesn't say much at all about the validity of the actual method used (see palm prints/foot prints contra finger prints). Many of the technical evidence we use today as proof in court have not always been so. And your way of discredit their findings are not much more than you stating your feelings in the matter.
"Some software" "He probably..." "I cannot see..." "...I'm not buying it..."
The author is a hypocrite of the highest degree. He accuses other media outlets of twisting facts to tell a narrative yet what he actually does is add in many seemingly, but to my eye not in reality, related "factoids" in an effort to 1. justify Zimmerman's initial conduct (that is to say, not the shooting but stalking Martin) and 2. paint Martin as a hoodlum (with such statements as "However, you have to do something pretty bad to get suspended for five days."). Also, he frames the whole story with an anecdote about "gangbangers". You know, perhaps a more fitting framing would be to tell a story about a vigilante murdering someone?
I lived in Memphis, TN for a few years where the local media is notorious for this sort of behavior. They used the same techniques, the same scapegoats and the same tone. Around there, my sense is that the general consensus amongst the more educated community is that such a system exists because it appeals to the people most likely to consume the local news; suburban low to middle income whites. People who, in Memphis, have a history of strong racism against blacks.
I want to add that this author makes zero attempt to hide his political opinions in his writing (http://www.examiner.com/user/3951956/1664336/articles). That makes him an opinion author, not a journalist, and as such I think that such material does not belong in this thread where we should stick to actual investigative journalism.
On April 01 2012 20:50 Miyoshino wrote: lol it seems that in some states in the US you can carry a gun, follow someone around, call 9/11 because someone weas a hoody (such a bad US fashion trend), get told to stop doing paranoid schizophrenic shit by the 9/11 operator, follow him anyway, either start the fight yourself or provoke, take a hit, then pull out your gun and just kill him out of self defense.
If this law holds anyone who is smart can get away with first degree murder as long as he can get his victim into a fist fight.
wow please sensationalize a little harder, i love reading pure fiction. here, can i try?
lol it seems that in some states, you can spend your time off suspended from school (for being a vandal and drug dealer, and assaulting people nonetheless) casing a neighbohood from which to steal, conceal your identity and act suspiciously, run when you're confronted by a concerned citizen who just wants to ask you some questions, wait til he turns his back on you and savagely assault him, and then when you get what's coming to you, your family can demonize the neighborhood hero
^doesn't that sound a bit ridiculous? it should because it's about as close to what happened as what you said.
>approaching someone is not following them. it doesn't sound like zimmerman was stalking trayvon for blocks upon end. when trayvon walked past his car, he got out and tried to catch up with him
>zimmerman didnt call "9/11" which is a date btw, nor did he call 911. he called the non-emergency dispatch line
>trayvon was acting suspiciously, wandering around in a neighborhood at night that was not his own neighborhood. zimmerman did not call the police because trayvon was wearing a hoodie
>the "9/11" operator did not tell him to stop being a paranoid schizophrenic, the only words he used to discourage zimmerman were "we don't need you to do that." didn't even say anything about "stop right now sir"
making sensationalist posts doesn't further the conversation at all. we get it. you think zimmerman is a bad person. try to use a little objectivity in your posts
On April 02 2012 00:46 red_b wrote: gtrsrs, actually Zimmerman did admit to following Martin in the call.
The part of the call where the operator asks is he is following Tayvon and the operator tells him not to is the most damning of all the evidence to me. He knew professionals were on the job and instead opted for vigilante justice WHILE armed. I am left wondering if there is any legal notion of increased accountability for those bearing arms. It seems to not be so given this case but it probably should be.
On April 02 2012 00:46 red_b wrote: gtrsrs, actually Zimmerman did admit to following Martin in the call.
The part of the call where the operator asks is he is following Tayvon and the operator tells him not to is the most damning of all the evidence to me. He knew professionals were on the job and instead opted for vigilante justice WHILE armed. I am left wondering if there is any legal notion of increased accountability for those bearing arms. It seems to not be so given this case but it probably should be.
Zimmerman calls the non-emergency police line at 7:00 pm. The police arrive finally at 7:17 pm. Surely you can see that Zimmerman was concerned that the suspect could get away if he just left it at that, and felt he would better protect his community from this would-be burglar if he followed him?
I don't see what you find damning about Zimmerman following the guy. You think he was stalking a random stranger because he just felt like killing someone that day?
So many of these questions and debates seem pointless to me. It's not illegal to follow someone. It's not illegal to carry a gun. It's not illegal to call a police dispatcher. The stand your ground law doesn't grant people the right to self defense before they are even attacked.
The only question that matters in this whole scenario is: Who initiated the violence, and to what degree?
Don't know why this case got blown out of porpotion so badly by the medias. Through out the years there are thousand or more cases like this and the victims are varies, not just black. For example, a brother of my friend ( Asian) was robbed and brutally stabbed to death by 2 teenage African American male 4 years ago. Where is the media? where is the public outcry? The medias should let this story die out, because this story will just provoke more hate crimes imo.
On April 01 2012 20:50 Miyoshino wrote: lol it seems that in some states in the US you can carry a gun, follow someone around, call 9/11 because someone weas a hoody (such a bad US fashion trend), get told to stop doing paranoid schizophrenic shit by the 9/11 operator, follow him anyway, either start the fight yourself or provoke, take a hit, then pull out your gun and just kill him out of self defense.
If this law holds anyone who is smart can get away with first degree murder as long as he can get his victim into a fist fight.
wow please sensationalize a little harder, i love reading pure fiction. here, can i try?
lol it seems that in some states, you can spend your time off suspended from school (for being a vandal and drug dealer, and assaulting people nonetheless) casing a neighbohood from which to steal, conceal your identity and act suspiciously, run when you're confronted by a concerned citizen who just wants to ask you some questions, wait til he turns his back on you and savagely assault him, and then when you get what's coming to you, your family can demonize the neighborhood hero
I am puzzled as to why you try to convince me that you have the same mental health issues as this Zimerman.
If Martin was the one who survived and he was walking away when Zimmerman approached him, would Martin be the one where SYG applies? He's the one being followed and he has the right to not move from his position.
On April 02 2012 02:47 Nukid wrote: Don't know why this case got blown out of porpotion so badly by the medias. Through out the years there are thousand or more cases like this and the victims are varies, not just black. For example, a brother of my friend ( Asian) was robbed and brutally stabbed to death by 2 teenage African American male 4 years ago. Where is the media? where is the public outcry? The medias should let this story die out, because this story will just provoke more hate crimes imo.
You don't get the connection that the media sensationalizing this is making profits from increased viewership ? Why would they let it die out ? They are riding it (and inciting it) for as long as they can.
On April 02 2012 00:46 red_b wrote: gtrsrs, actually Zimmerman did admit to following Martin in the call.
The part of the call where the operator asks is he is following Tayvon and the operator tells him not to is the most damning of all the evidence to me. He knew professionals were on the job and instead opted for vigilante justice WHILE armed. I am left wondering if there is any legal notion of increased accountability for those bearing arms. It seems to not be so given this case but it probably should be.
Zimmerman calls the non-emergency police line at 7:00 pm. The police arrive finally at 7:17 pm. Surely you can see that Zimmerman was concerned that the suspect could get away if he just left it at that, and felt he would better protect his community from this would-be burglar if he followed him?
I don't see what you find damning about Zimmerman following the guy. You think he was stalking a random stranger because he just felt like killing someone that day?
Because it's completely void of any sense. It doesn't matter what police line Zimmerman called. They told him not to follow for his own safety. What if, in a hypothetical world Trayvon -- or ANYONE else you're reporting to the police, was actually armed? Zimmerman very likely could not have been able to conclude there was no possibility of a concealed weapon. It's very easy to think in retrospect knowing now he was just an innocent, unarmed kid. But for all Zimmerman knew he could have armed. There could have been other armed friends nearby. So in his incredible bout of wisdom, he decides to confront Trayvon.
In 15 minutes where would Trayvon have run to? If they wanted to find him they'd just bring in the police dog unit. And it'd have been easy enough to inform the police what direction he runs to if, for no reason at all Trayvon decided to sprint off completely unprovoked. If he had a car, write his license plate number. It's like no one knows how ordinary, sane citizens report people they think are committing a crime.
do you know why we call experts "whores" in the legal profession?
edit:
so, apparently, there are not many people in this field. in my experience, its usually a field that is not tested and unreliable. or its a highly specialized field with very few that can do it. im going to lean towards the former in this case.
"Thomas J. Owen, an internationally renowned forensics expert and witness, is one of only a handful of experts in the emerging field of digital media forensics."
That's funny. In the medical profession, we call lawyers "whores".
They guy seems to have good credentials, and the article even goes on to cite how his analysis has had precendent in a previous case. The other expert also came to the same conclusion using different methods. By definition, an expert is a minority in their field, you call in the expert because they have the unique experience in the field. And even the link you edited in has other multiple examples of his expertise in use in legal matters (though before your edit, that was an absolutely terrible and inflamatory post). The guys credentials seem pretty legit as well as his past testimonies. Discrediting him because not a lot of people go into that field(its understandable that forensic audio and video analysis is not a field people aspire to be in and join in droves) seems to insult his time spent in the field. Making assumptions about the field based on the number of people in it isn't really a good argument, maybe if you used actual evidence that it is untested and unreliable you would have a point.
The road to admissibility of voice identification evidence in the courts of the United States has not been without its potholes. Many courts have had to rule on this issue without having access to all the facts. Trial strategies and budgets have resulted in incomplete pictures for the courts. To compound the problem, courts have utilized different standards of admission resulting in different opinions as to the admissibility of voice identification evidence. Even those courts which have claimed to use the same standard of admissibility have interpreted it in a variety of ways resulting in a lack of consistency. Although many courts have denied admission to voice identification evidence, none of the courts excluding the spectrographic evidence have found the technique unreliable. Exclusion has always been based on the fact that the evidence presented did not present a clear picture of the technique's acceptance in the scientific community and as such, the court was reluctant to rely on that evidence. The majority of courts hearing the issue have admitted spectrographic voice identification evidence.
Which doesn't seem to be the case.
touche.
everything i have read on "spectrographic voice identification evidence" seems to indicate that it is not widely accepted in the scientific/legal community, and apparently that it is subject to the manipulation of the "expert." it is not hard facts, it is opinion.
regardless, you have the father saying its not Trayvon on the one hand, and an "expert" saying it is not zimmerman on the other hand.
as for his credentials, i have seen experts with 30 page "credentials" lie in court. recently an expert in diagnosing mixed dust causation was thrown out of court for fraud, and I believe the FBI is pressing charges against him. like the guy above said, once someone puts "expert" in front of their name, people will believe anything. that is why courts have the Daubert and related state standards, to keep garbage out of the courts.
edit: people probably realize my bias by now. i have seen too many experts make up bullshit opinions to trust them. if an expert had come out and said "that is definitely zimmerman's voice." i would equally call their opinion bullshit. this whole voice identification "science" seems completely subjective and unreliable based on my research.
The author is a hypocrite of the highest degree. He accuses other media outlets of twisting facts to tell a narrative yet what he actually does is add in many seemingly, but to my eye not in reality, related "factoids" in an effort to 1. justify Zimmerman's initial conduct (that is to say, not the shooting but stalking Martin) and 2. paint Martin as a hoodlum (with such statements as "However, you have to do something pretty bad to get suspended for five days."). Also, he frames the whole story with an anecdote about "gangbangers". You know, perhaps a more fitting framing would be to tell a story about a vigilante murdering someone?
I lived in Memphis, TN for a few years where the local media is notorious for this sort of behavior. They used the same techniques, the same scapegoats and the same tone. Around there, my sense is that the general consensus amongst the more educated community is that such a system exists because it appeals to the people most likely to consume the local news; suburban low to middle income whites. People who, in Memphis, have a history of strong racism against blacks.
I want to add that this author makes zero attempt to hide his political opinions in his writing (http://www.examiner.com/user/3951956/1664336/articles). That makes him an opinion author, not a journalist, and as such I think that such material does not belong in this thread where we should stick to actual investigative journalism.
i can see your disagreement with his writing. i only referred to the article because it summarized the police's statements.
On April 02 2012 02:35 liberal wrote: So many of these questions and debates seem pointless to me. It's not illegal to follow someone. It's not illegal to carry a gun. It's not illegal to call a police dispatcher. The stand your ground law doesn't grant people the right to self defense before they are even attacked.
The only question that matters in this whole scenario is: Who initiated the violence, and to what degree?
The rest is just white noise.
I hear ya. I'd like to give my take on another debate topic: Who does the voice calling for help on the 911 call belong to?
My interpretation of the facts Zimmerman's claim should be taken with a grain of salt because a lot of people in his shoes would claim it was their own voice in such a situation, regardless of whether it really was or not, in order to try and prove their innocence.
As far as we know, the unnamed eyewitness backs up Zimmerman's story fully. His claims that it was Zimmerman crying for help could be doubted if there was reason to believe this eyewitness could have an ulterior motive for lying on Zimmerman's behalf, but so far we know of no such motive. He could also misremember what happened, or be confused about it.
The voice identification experts' claims, I am less of a fan of. Firstly, there is dAPhREAk's valid point of how some "experts" whore themselves out to reach convenient conclusions for their clients on legal cases, or maybe even to just cause controversy and get free publicity for their craft. However, even if they were being completely honest, I have another problem with this, which Felnarion brought up: Doesn't a person's voice sound wildly different when they're screaming for help than when they're talking normally? How accurate and objective is this technique, really?
Personally, I would put a lot more weight on what their close relatives have to say on the matter; people who know how the person in question might sound like when yelling for help. The facts that Zimmerman's father claims that the voice definitely belongs to his son, whereas Martin's father initially claims that the voice does not belong to Martin but then changes his mind, makes me think the voice probably belonged to Zimmerman.
Feel free to add to or question my exposition of the facts, and of course, also to present your own analysis and interpretation of said facts if you disagree with me.
On April 02 2012 02:35 liberal wrote: So many of these questions and debates seem pointless to me. It's not illegal to follow someone. It's not illegal to carry a gun. It's not illegal to call a police dispatcher. The stand your ground law doesn't grant people the right to self defense before they are even attacked.
The only question that matters in this whole scenario is: Who initiated the violence, and to what degree?
The rest is just white noise.
I hear ya. I'd like to give my take on another debate topic: Who does the voice calling for help on the 911 call belong to?
My interpretation of the facts Zimmerman's claim should be taken with a grain of salt because a lot of people in his shoes would claim it was their own voice in such a situation, regardless of whether it really was or not, in order to try and prove their innocence.
As far as we know, the unnamed eyewitness backs up Zimmerman's story fully. His claims that it was Zimmerman crying for help could be doubted if there was reason to believe this eyewitness could have an ulterior motive for lying on Zimmerman's behalf, but so far we know of no such motive. He could also misremember what happened, or be confused about it.
The voice identification experts' claims, I am less of a fan of. Firstly, there is dAPhREAk's valid point of how some "experts" whore themselves out to reach convenient conclusions for their clients on legal cases, or maybe even to just cause controversy and get free publicity for their craft. However, even if they were being completely honest, I have another problem with this, which Felnarion brought up: Doesn't a person's voice sound wildly different when they're screaming for help than when they're talking normally?
Personally, I would put a lot more weight on what their close relatives have to say on the matter; people who know how the person in question might sound like when yelling for help. The facts that Zimmerman's father claims that the voice definitely belongs to his son, whereas Martin's father claims that the voice does NOT belong to his son, lead me to think that the voice calling for help almost certainly belonged to Zimmerman.
Feel free to add to or question my exposition of the facts, and of course, also to present your own analysis and interpretation of said facts if you disagree with me.
Actually Trayvon Martin's father did claim it was his son's voice, in a later interview on Anderson 360. That is the story he is currently sticking with, though that shouldn't be construed as anything, because it is possible after hearing the tapes again over following days he does recognize the voice and changed his mind. Since either sides parents would stand to gain that it was their son on the tape, I don't really care that much what either of them say though.
On April 02 2012 02:35 liberal wrote: So many of these questions and debates seem pointless to me. It's not illegal to follow someone. It's not illegal to carry a gun. It's not illegal to call a police dispatcher. The stand your ground law doesn't grant people the right to self defense before they are even attacked.
The only question that matters in this whole scenario is: Who initiated the violence, and to what degree?
The rest is just white noise.
I hear ya. I'd like to give my take on another debate topic: Who does the voice calling for help on the 911 call belong to?
My interpretation of the facts Zimmerman's claim should be taken with a grain of salt because a lot of people in his shoes would claim it was their own voice in such a situation, regardless of whether it really was or not, in order to try and prove their innocence.
As far as we know, the unnamed eyewitness backs up Zimmerman's story fully. His claims that it was Zimmerman crying for help could be doubted if there was reason to believe this eyewitness could have an ulterior motive for lying on Zimmerman's behalf, but so far we know of no such motive. He could also misremember what happened, or be confused about it.
The voice identification experts' claims, I am less of a fan of. Firstly, there is dAPhREAk's valid point of how some "experts" whore themselves out to reach convenient conclusions for their clients on legal cases, or maybe even to just cause controversy and get free publicity for their craft. However, even if they were being completely honest, I have another problem with this, which Felnarion brought up: Doesn't a person's voice sound wildly different when they're screaming for help than when they're talking normally?
Personally, I would put a lot more weight on what their close relatives have to say on the matter; people who know how the person in question might sound like when yelling for help. The facts that Zimmerman's father claims that the voice definitely belongs to his son, whereas Martin's father claims that the voice does NOT belong to his son, lead me to think that the voice calling for help almost certainly belonged to Zimmerman.
Feel free to add to or question my exposition of the facts, and of course, also to present your own analysis and interpretation of said facts if you disagree with me.
Actually Trayvon Martin's father did claim it was his son's voice, in a later interview on Anderson 360. That is the story he is currently sticking with, though that shouldn't be construed as anything, because it is possible after hearing the tapes again over following days he does recognize the voice and changed his mind. Since either sides parents would stand to gain that it was their son on the tape, I don't really care that much what either of them say though.
normally, i would agree with you. both parents have a good reason to say that is it their son's voice. zimmerman's father obviously wants to see him stay out of prison; trayvon's father wants his son's reputation to be protected (and they are suing the homeowner's association for money). i would probably disregard both of their opinions. however, the fact that trayvon's father initially said "its not my son's voice" gives me some doubt as to whether it was in fact trayvon screaming (especially considering all of the evidence pointed out in the quote above). reasonable doubt is all you need to beat a conviction.
EPT
