Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Do you have any evidence at all the audio forensics is woo? Case where it's been used to wrongly ID someone? Cases where it's been proven to be snake oil? Up until now I have considered it to be more in line with fingerprinting. Sounds have markers and if you know what to look for, you can compare two sounds and calculate their similarities.

Absent any contradictory evidence, I find the dismissal of audio forensics as a field to be ridiculous.

It's not up to us to prove it's woo, it's up to you to present convincing evidence that it can be used in this type of a circumstance to reliably identify voices.

And the silence regarding double blind tests is deafening.

 

[crimresearch]

This is the very definition of an ad hom attack. Dr. Block is suspect, therefore ABRE is a fraud, therefore Owen is a fraud, therefore audio forensics is woo, therefore we can't possibly ID the voice as not being Zimmerman.

Got it.

That might be an ad hom argument, but not an ad hom attack.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Right, because a top expert in the field who has published in peer reviewed journals can't be relied on to have tested the software he developed.

You just don't like being challenged to show double blind tests validating this type of identification, do you? So much easier to engage in appeal to authority arguments.

 

[Unabogie]

WHAT ELSE do I base the ABRE on, but it's founder ? That's a serious question, BTW. Do you have other references to is as a professional organization ?

I point that out, because bogus professional organizations are used all the time to bolster credibility.

I'm simply being skepitcal. I'm not attacking. I'm not pretending to be an expert. I didn't call voice recognition woo. What's wrong with the approach I am taking ?

Well it's obvious that in emotional cases like this, people tend to "take sides". IMO, the question of who was doing the screaming was a key point of evidence to resolve. People in this thread expected experts to testify at trial (if there ever is a trial). So having one of those experts take a stab at the tapes is pretty big news. Having two experts come to the same conclusion is even more telling.

But since people have begun to "take sides", you can see that the last two pages are questioning if audio forensics is even a real thing, or is just "woo". That word, "woo" is being liberally bandied about, and the only reason if because everyone here realizes that if Zimmerman lied about screaming and that the voice is actually the kid he shot, he's cooked. And some people seem to not want that to happen, so they are shooting the messenger. If you're not, great. But you seem to be.

And in this case, we have two people contacted by a neutral news organization who are calling George Zimmerman a liar. If there are other experts who dispute this, I'm open to their reasons. But calling these two men scientific frauds, with zero evidence, is the hallmark of the AGW deniers.

 

[RandFan]

It's damn lucky how many people in this thread are voice recognition experts technology all of a sudden. It looks to me more like people are googleing and cherry-picking, but I could be wrong.

Anyhow, about the hilited part - I need to know very little about the actual technology or ABRE to draw some conclusions.

One thing we find is an abstract regarding the prescribed methodology: http://expertpages.com/news/american_board_voice_comparison.htm
If this is accurate, the " recommended practices for the handling, preparation and analysis of recorded evidence" do not appear to have been followed in this analysis.

Second, please refer to the following link on the "Founder, CEO, and Publisher" of the ABRE, specifically the about page:
http://www.droblock.com/about.html

After you review that page, feel free to come back and post about how impressive or not impressive the ABRE sounds.

I'm sorry, what are you alleging in regards to the "about page"?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Well it's obvious that in emotional cases like this, people tend to "take sides". IMO, the question of who was doing the screaming was a key point of evidence to resolve. People in this thread expected experts to testify at trial (if there ever is a trial). So having one of those experts take a stab at the tapes is pretty big news. Having two experts come to the same conclusion is even more telling.

But since people have begun to "take sides", you can see that the last two pages are questioning if audio forensics is even a real thing, or is just "woo". That word, "woo" is being liberally bandied about, and the only reason if because everyone here realizes that if Zimmerman lied about screaming and that the voice is actually the kid he shot, he's cooked. And some people seem to not want that to happen, so they are shooting the messenger. If you're not, great. But you seem to be.

And in this case, we have two people contacted by a neutral news organization who are calling George Zimmerman a liar. If there are other experts who dispute this, I'm open to their reasons. But calling these two men scientific frauds, with zero evidence, is the hallmark of the AGW deniers.

I didn't call them scientific frauds. I asked, repeatedly, if anyone can show evidence via scientific double blind tests that this type of identification is valid. And that until someone can, I will remain highly skeptical that this is in fact, woo. And as with much woo, these men may genuinely believe they can do what they claim they can do, even if they can't. I want some evidence to prove it.


Until then, I'll say I am skeptical, but willing to change my mind with evidence. And that evidence would consist of double blind tests.

 

[RandFan]

It's not up to us to prove it's woo, it's up to you to present convincing evidence that it can be used in this type of a circumstance to reliably identify voices.

And the silence regarding double blind tests is deafening.

I called for double blind tests pages ago. In any event, the evidence needs to be tested in court. But given what I've read about this type of evidence being used in court I'm fine with forming an opinion on what I now know. I think this evidence tips the scales a bit in favor of GZ being guilty. Again, if I were to determine guilt of innocence on what I know right now based on the standard I would have to say innocent. In a civil case? That's tough but my opinion is more likely than not so liable. Of course, a trial could easily move me to not liable if the evidence were successfully challenged.

 

[Dan O.]

Was the underlined supposed to be a link?

No, links are grey and underlined. That was just a bullet point within the above link.

 

[Checkmite]

I wasn't aware that Zimmerman had applied for the JREF $1 million.

When did he become a 'claimant'?

When he made a claim. Are you next going to ask me what a "claim" is?

And when did critical thinking about a legal case include ignoring how the law actually works?

Objective fact and legal truth are not the same thing. For instance, procedural consideration might prevent a murder weapon with the defendant's prints on it from being presented as evidence in court; not being in court, we don't have to pretend such a piece of evidence doesn't exist.

And you might want to check the definition of 'race baiting'... I don't think that term means what you think it means.

Fine then - pick another term that approximates what you think I do mean.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't call them scientific frauds. I asked, repeatedly, if anyone can show evidence via scientific double blind tests that this type of identification is valid. And that until someone can, I will remain highly skeptical that this is in fact, woo. And as with much woo, these men may genuinely believe they can do what they claim they can do, even if they can't. I want some evidence to prove it.


Until then, I'll say I am skeptical, but willing to change my mind with evidence. And that evidence would consist of double blind tests.

I don't see any evidence to move me to the woo category. It could be. But my initial impression is that it is good. It's certainly possible that it's the equivalent of the ADE651 but that's not my impression.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You just don't like being challenged to show double blind tests validating this type of identification, do you? So much easier to engage in appeal to authority arguments.

There's a difference between dismissing an expert analysis done by one of the leading audio forensics experts in the country and 'appeal to authority'.

An appeal to authority fallacy is when you cite an authority who is only spouting opinion. Your argument is analogous to saying a top cardiologist in the field can't diagnose a patient with a heart condition because you want to see a RCDBCT before you accept his expertise. There are times when someone is qualified to give an expert opinion. Challenging his methodology is a desperate plea to deny inconvenient results in this case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I called for double blind tests pages ago. In any event, the evidence needs to be tested in court. But given what I've read about this type of evidence being used in court I'm fine with forming an opinion on what I now know. I think this evidence tips the scales a bit in favor of GZ being guilty. Again, if I were to determine guilt of innocence on what I know right now based on the standard I would have to say innocent. In a civil case? That's tough but my opinion is more likely than not so liable. Of course, a trial could easily move me to not liable if the evidence were successfully challenged.

According to the web page it has been used in court and helped obtain a conviction:

"The ability of Easy Voice Biometrics to eliminate suspects on under cover recordings and terrorists "live" recordings shortcuts the elimination process for Law Enforcement and saves hundreds of hours while doing it. They can then focus their time on stronger voice matches" says Tom Owen, one of this country’s foremost authorities on Audio Forensics.

" In a recent murder trial I (State of CT. v. Shelia Davalloo) I was able identify Ms. Davalloo as the person making a 911 call in the vicinity of where the murder happened." I was not able to do this in 2004 because of the quality of the tape. In 2012, Easy Voice Biometrics was able to identify her voice; even with a less than perfect 911 tape. She was convicted.”

The product is designed to assist audio analysts. The assistance is done in two ways:

Speed up the expert identification analysis, when voice identification examination of many objects is realized, by selecting those speakers out that are not a reasonable match and ranking those that remain in order of similarity of the voice biometric traits.
The EasyVoiceBiometrics has additional mathematical voice ID methods along with other methods including voiceprint, pitch and formants analysis, linguistic and auditory analysis. It helps to make audio analysis more robust, quick and unbiased.

Just because the supporting research isn't easily found on the Net doesn't mean the testing does not exist.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Challenging his methodology is a desperate plea to deny inconvenient results in this case.

Why in the world do you think I want to "deny inconvenient results"? I think it would be a whole lot better if Zimmerman is guilty. It would probably help bring a lot of much needed attention to racial profiling as well as the bias that can lead us to make assumptions about people.

 

[RandFan]

According to the web page it has been used in court and helped obtain a conviction:

Just because the supporting research isn't easily found on the Net doesn't mean the testing does not exist.

Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to see it. I'm leaning toward the idea that this is good science.

Facts:

• The Times Sentinel hired two separate third party experts to do the analysis.
• Both excluded Zimmerman as a match.

For me, here and now, that meets the preponderance of evidence standard in order to form an opinion. But I would love as much evidence as I can get my hands on.

 

[Checkmite]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Meaningless platitude; it's not evidence of presence either. It is exactly what it is: absence of evidence.

The law doesn't require the defendant to prove any alternative theory beyond a doubt, and certainly doesn't require them to prove a negative (that they didn't commit murder).

Except when they admit to the actual act that would be illegal, but assert there's a mitigating circumstance.

If a defendant's account matches the elements of self defense to the available facts, the jury will be instructed to hold it in the light of innocent until proven guilty, and to test the prosecution's alternate theories against 'proven beyond any reasonable doubt'.

There are things that can be brought into evidence to attack the defendant's credibility, but a lot of what is being bandied about here as proof of guilt cannot be introduced as such in court.

The facts of the state's case as I've given them are supported by evidence which would be introducable.

Zimmerman's history can be used to suggest and to cast doubt, but it can't be given to the jury as an instruction that they must find Zimmerman guilty because of past behavior or personal characteristics.

Fine? I don't think I mentioned Zimmerman's past history.

Zimmerman's actions that night can be used to suggest some level of impulsive or reckless behavior, but that would be more applicable to a lesser charge, and the threshold is pretty high.

We were talking Manslaughter, weren't we?

Some of the other things brought up here, such as Zimmerman being Hispanic, or 'looking like a gang memeber', or having a CCW permit and having a weapon in his possession, are not worth much at all other than to inflame the jury... which a decent defense attorney (and judge) should shut down early and often.

Again, in my post outlining my reasoning I don't believe I mentioned any of these things.

Inconsistencies in what the *media* reported between police reports, and video footages, and witness statements again, cannot be instructed to the jury as evidence of guilt.

Again, not considered.

Things like voice analysis could be fairly important at contradicting Zimmerman's narrative... if the judge finds that they are widely accepted by the scientific community, and admits them in the first place.

See above.

Absent that or some other unimpeachable evidence, Zimmerman has every right to assert self defense purely on the critical element of 'I was in fear for my life'.

Anybody has the right to assert anything.

The prosecution is going to have to prove to the jury that no matter what happened earlier, he was not thinking those thoughts when he pulled the trigger.

I'm not sure that's strictly true. I think if the prosecution can convince the jury that Zimmerman dove into the pond with his eyes fully open, as it were, the jury might not care as much that he didn't know how to swim.

 

[Alt+F4]

According to the web page it has been used in court and helped obtain a conviction:

But in that case (Davalloo) he was able to make an identification to a living person. Where's the evidence that this can be done when the person in question is dead and there appears to be no previous audio to compare a 911 call to? Also, I would think that a person's voice when under extreme stress is different then their normal talking voice. How is that taken into consideration?

Mr. Owen may very well be a great witness if this case ever sees a jury but the information we have now amounts to nothing other than poor yellow journalism.

 

[WildCat]

Care to answer my question? If it's proven to be Martin screaming, is that game over for Zimmerman?

I think it would be incredibly damaging to Zimmerman's case, but this assclown with his magical software sure as hell didn't prove anything except Barnum's Theorem.

 

[Unabogie]

But in that case (Davalloo) he was able to make an identification to a living person. Where's the evidence that this can be done when the person in question is dead and there appears to be no previous audio to compare a 911 call to? Also, I would think that a person's voice when under extreme stress is different then their normal talking voice. How is that taken into consideration?

Mr. Owen may very well be a great witness if this case ever sees a jury but the information we have now amounts to nothing other than poor yellow journalism.

He doesn't have to rule in Martin. He only has to rule out Zimmerman, since there wasn't anyone else there, and none of the other witnesses claimed to be screaming.

 

[WildCat]

The FBI study was of experts in court cases that were using spectral analysis to compare the same spoken words between the suspect and the target. The biometric analysis used by Owen is creating a characteristic model of the vocal tract and comparing the models. The earlier process is heavily influenced by the vocal cords generating the sound. In the later case, the vocal cords are simply a noise source which is used to map the vocal cavities.

They're reading the same damned thing. It's just a different name.

Let me know when you find a peer-reviewd published paper that shows someone can match voices under similar conditions as the Martin 911 recordings. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Newtons Bit]

They're reading the same damned thing. It's just a different name.

Let me know when you find a peer-reviewd published paper that shows someone can match voices under similar conditions as the Martin 911 recordings. I won't hold my breath.

Jumping in quite late to this topic: what source of Zimmerman's voice are they comparing the 911 calls to?