Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Cylinder]

"If the suspect is being engaged in conversation for the purpose of obtaining a voice sample, the conversation must be manipulated in such a way so as to have the suspect repeat as many of the words and phrases found in the text of the unknown recording as possible."

Thomas J. Owen
Certified Voice Identification Examiner

 

[sgtbaker]

Cylinder, where are you getting this from and of what form of voice indentification is he speaking? I am not challenging it, just before I start believing it I want to make sure it's in the correct context.

 

[Unabogie]

Also, can you put all of these in a single post, with sources, dates, etc?

 

[Cylinder]

"As in any other form of identification analysis, as the quality of the evidence with which the examiner has to work declines, the greater the amount of evidence and time necessary to complete the analysis, and the less likely the chance for a positive conclusion."

Thomas J. Owen
Instructor, New York Institute for Forensic Audio

 

[Cylinder]

"An example of the initial aural comparison is the screening of the samples for pronunciation similarities or discrepancies such as the word "the" may be said with a short "a" sound or a long "e" sound. If the word is not pronounced in the same manner it loses comparison value."

Thomas J. Owen
Special Deputy, Warren County Sheriff's Department

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have no idea, but maybe he made those comments relative to the old-tech?

Now perhaps there is some new-tech that makes his old comments obsolete?

Of course you don't know, because Cylinder didn't bother with a link. And it serves him well to cherry pick from that very long piece of Owen's without letting the thread reader see for themselves the context of those comments. BTW, the piece is even more evidence of Owen's scientific integrity.

I already noted the cherry picking here.

I notice you cherry picked Owen's own words. Here, let me cherry pick mine:

One of the reasons for such opposition regarding admissibility is that the method has evolved greatly since its initial application. Court decisions based on early methods of voice identification analysis are not applicable to the methods used today. No longer are voices compared on the basis of a limited group of key words. Today's aural/spectrographic voice identification method takes advantage of the latest in technological advancements and interweaves several analyses into one procedure to produce an accurate opinion as to the identity of a voice. This modern technique combines the experience of a trained examiner performing the visual analysis of the spectrograms and aural analysis of the recordings with the use of the latest instruments modern technology has to offer, all in a standardized methodology to assure reliability. Court decisions reviewing the early voice identification cases may not be relevant to present day cases because the older decisions were based on less sophisticated procedures. Most of the courts which have rejected admission have been aware of continuing work in this field and have specifically left the door open as to future admissibility.

Voice Identification The Aural / Spectrographic Method - By: Thomas J. Owen

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It also might be a difference between positively identifying a voice and excluding a voice. For comparison, to say a suspect was a firm DNA match, you might require all sorts of standards. However if you have samples that don't happen to meet those requirements, but one sample has markers for someone with blue eyes and the suspect is homozygous for brown eyes, that would be enough to exclude - even if the samples are nowhere near the requirements for a positive match.

I found this document (its UK based so may not be as relevant) http://www.forensic-speech-science.info/position.html talking about voice analysis and how to express liklihood of a match etc. Might be of interest. One of the main authors is this guy: http://www.jpfrench.com/docs/frenchcv.pdf ; how does Owen's CV match up in terms of qualifications, experience and publications?

 

[sgtbaker]

It also might be a difference between positively identifying a voice and excluding a voice. For comparison, to say a suspect was a firm DNA match, you might require all sorts of standards. However if you have samples that don't happen to meet those requirements, but one sample has markers for someone with blue eyes and the suspect is homozygous for brown eyes, that would be enough to exclude - even if the samples are nowhere near the requirements for a positive match.

I found this document (its UK based so may not be as relevant) talking about voice analysis and how to express liklihood of a match etc. Might be of interest. One of the main authors is this guy: http://www.jpfrench.com/docs/frenchcv.pdf ; how does Owen's CV match up in terms of qualifications, experience and publications?

That's like, a lot of reading and stuff. Can't you just snip out the relevant parts and make a point for me?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Also, can you put all of these in a single post, with sources, dates, etc?

Here is one:
http://www.experts.com/Articles/Voi...-Aural-Spectrographic-Method-By-Thomas-J-Owen

ETA - yes, they are all from there. I assume the different titles are just from the CV

 

[Cylinder]

Of course you don't know, because Cylinder didn't bother with a link. And it serves him well to cherry pick from that very long piece of Owen's without letting the thread reader see for themselves the context of those comments

I've already provided the cite.

Cylinder
Poster, Internet Message Board

 

[crimresearch]

I've already provided the cite.

No you haven't. SG says so

 

[Cylinder]

No you haven't. SG says so.

I'll do three hail marys and slam my fingers in a car door.

 

[Moss]

I wonder why he attempted an identification if he cannot do so for screams. Or are those not screams in his definition? The software demonstration videos attempt to contradict some of the cylinder provided. That leaves a rather curious impression.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'll do three hail marys and slam my fingers in a car door.

It's OK. I am sure all the voice recognition experts are busy googling for quotes that re-support the experts apparent non-support of his own methodology

 

[AvalonXQ]

Here's the most problematic part for me:

Today's aural/spectrographic voice identification method takes advantage of the latest in technological advancements and interweaves several analyses into one procedure to produce an accurate opinion as to the identity of a voice. This modern technique combines the experience of a trained examiner performing the visual analysis of the spectrograms and aural analysis of the recordings with the use of the latest instruments modern technology has to offer, all in a standardized methodology to assure reliability.

Note the part in emphasis, which is also backed up by some of the descriptions and tutorials we've seen elsewhere on this.
He's saying that a large part of the analysis is the subjective judgement of the expert as to whether or not the spectrograms look the same and whether or not the voices sound the same.
That's really troubling to me; whenever evidence is based at least in part on a person's judgement, I want to see blinded testing to assure that the person's judgment is known to be accurate. Do we have any examples of forensic audio experts submitting to blind tests of their judgment abilities?

 

[Moss]

Well, that sounds... not that good. While software is only as good as the people who designed it and implemented it are, at least it is consistently so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've already provided the cite.

Cylinder
Poster, Internet Message Board

Right, because everyone is reading every post in this fast moving thread and taking notes . Of course the citation was buried in the thread. D'uh, I linked to a past post with the citation.

Now how about you comment on why you took Owen's comments out of context?

 

[Beerina]

Nova once showed the waveform analysis of a perfect George Burns impersonator and George Burns saying the exact same phrase. By breaking them down into their component waveforms, something akin to fingerprints emerged, and they could be easily distinguished. I don't know if this poor quality of a recording would be amenable to this, to say nothing of high or low frequency clamping over the phone.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here's the most problematic part for me:

Note the part in emphasis, which is also backed up by some of the descriptions and tutorials we've seen elsewhere on this.
He's saying that a large part of the analysis is the subjective judgement of the expert as to whether or not the spectrograms look the same and whether or not the voices sound the same.
That's really troubling to me; whenever evidence is based at least in part on a person's judgement, I want to see blinded testing to assure that the person's judgment is known to be accurate. Do we have any examples of forensic audio experts submitting to blind tests of their judgment abilities?

That's ok - at least the other expert relies on hard science.
http://edprimeau.com/expert-witness/

"My philosophy is that forensics examination and restoration of audio/video media ideally combines art, as well as science. The methods that an expert uses require attention to detail and scientific principles, complemented by an appreciation for clarity and aesthetics. My techniques are derived from both formal education and application of skills gained by working in many forensics situations."

 

[AvalonXQ]

There's no reason the subjective judgment of an expert can't be good evidence. But where, as here, it's clearly admitted that subjective judgment is part of the procedure, blinded testing really is necessary to determine how accurate a given expert's judgment really is.