Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[totoro]

Yes, we do. Because the very experts you cite tell us it is.

It is you who is disagreeing with the experts, not me. The experts tell us you have to compare like to like, even the same phrase verbatim.

Not a single expert in any published paper claims to be able to compare a scream to a speaking voice.

None of the academic papers is all that concerned about it, in actuality. But whatever, you can pretend to be an expert, it really doesn't hurt anything.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Owen is saying the courts may not be up to speed with the advances in the field because past cases dealt with older technologies. The conclusion continues: Got that last line? Let me make sure you caught that: PRODUCE ACCURATE RESULTS

Ah, yes. Despite being rejected by courts in the past, modern techniques produce accurate results, according to the experts who make their living from the use of those techniques. The evidence confirms their validity, as me and my friends in the field, both producing and judging the evidence, will all agree.

Where have we heard this before?

 

[Information Analyst]

Nope. People often refer to SUVs as "cars". We have an SUV and often refer to it as a "car".

Then I'll defer to that.

 

[sgtbaker]

Heavy irony.

Explain?

 

[Information Analyst]

Explain?

I think you're far more wedded to a prejudgement about Zimmerman than I am.

 

[CORed]

Clearly, what NBC did is of prime importance to the case of the dead child.

While it's not as important as the incident itself, NBC made an extremely misleading edit of the tapes that may well influence public opinion and potential jurors. The are rightly being criticized for this.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

Owen, a forensic audio analyst who is also chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, said he also does not believe the screams come from Zimmerman.
Software frequently used to analyze voices in legal cases shows a 48% likelihood that the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident that two samples are from the same source, he said Monday on CNN.

Didn't this used to be 90% ???

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

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.

 

[RandFan]

Ah, yes. Despite being rejected by courts in the past, modern techniques produce accurate results, according to the experts who make their living from the use of those techniques. The evidence confirms their validity, as me and my friends in the field, both producing and judging the evidence, will all agree.

Where have we heard this before?

If the courts came to accept polygraph tests because improved technology were empirically shown to be accurate then I would not have a problem with that at all. From my observation voice printing is gaining in acceptance. Polygraph, Dr. Rovner appears to be a statistical outlier.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

And what bothers me are all the attempts to discredit Owen when there is so much evidence of his scientific standards.

Yes, his degree in history is very impressive.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, his degree in history is very impressive.

Don't you think that ignoring his other credentials is intellectually dishonest? What basis is there to say that a person who has credentials outside of his degree is unqualified?

 

[RandFan]

It's a fallacy...

...to assert that expertise can only come from an institution of higher education.

Thomas J. Owen

• B.A. History 1969
• Bellarmine College, Louisville, Kentucky
• Certificate of Achievement, Electro-Acoustics Synergetic Audio Concepts, 1983
• Completion of Voice Identification Course, 1985
• Certification as Voice Identification Examiner, July 17, 1986 by the
• International Association for Identification,
  Life Member Kentucky Division
  Life Member New Jersey Division
• Audio Engineering Society NY Chapter Board of Directors 1989-1991 1996-1998
• Chairman (1991 to Present) Audio Engineering Society WG0-12 Working Group
  "Forensic Audio"
• The American Board of Forensic Examiners - BCFE, ABFE Fellow, Life Member,
  Board Certified, Homeland Security Advisory Board
• Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Recorded Evidence - American College of Forensic
  Examiners 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
• Diplomate in Audio/Video Authenticity and Voice Identification
• Instructor "Southern Conference Seminar" Western Kentucky University 1992
• Instructor "New York Institute for Forensic Audio" 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
  1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007
• Special Deputy, Warren County Sheriff's Department, Bowling Green, KY
• Experience in the Recording Arts, 35 years

 

[WildCat]

None of the academic papers is all that concerned about it, in actuality.

They absolutely are! You have to compare like to like, the same exact phrase is ideal. The further away from that you get the less reliable it is.

According to the experts, you cannot compare a terrified scream for help with a normal speaking voice that never once utters the word "help".

And that's not even getting into the issues of recording quality!

But hey, you know more than all the published authors in the field, right?

 

[A'isha]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

Owen, a forensic audio analyst who is also chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, said he also does not believe the screams come from Zimmerman.
Software frequently used to analyze voices in legal cases shows a 48% likelihood that the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident that two samples are from the same source, he said Monday on CNN.

Didn't this used to be 90% ???

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

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.

Note the "with audio of this quality" and "at least 60%" qualifiers.

That reads to me like he's saying that normally, a confidence of 60% is the absolute lowest percentage required for analyses in general, but that he'd rather use a higher percentage than that usual minimum is required in this particular instance because of the audio samples used.

 

[WildCat]

Note the "with audio of this quality" and "at least 60%" qualifiers.

That reads to me like he's saying that normally, a confidence of 60% is the absolute lowest percentage required for analyses in general, but that a higher percentage than that usual minimum is required in this particular instance because of the audio samples used.

So the lower the audio quality the more accurate the test becomes? What is this, audio homeopathy?

 

[Cylinder]

Owen is saying the courts may not be up to speed with the advances in the field because past cases dealt with older technologies. The conclusion continues: Got that last line? Let me make sure you caught that: PRODUCE ACCURATE RESULTS

The problem is that he didn't follow the same professional standards that he articulated earlier in the same monograph.

 

[Cylinder]

So the lower the audio quality the more accurate the test becomes? What is this, audio homeopathy?

Also notice the shift in claim. Not authenticated as Zimmerman is not the same assertion as eliminated Zimmerman.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Note the "with audio of this quality" and "at least 60%" qualifiers.

That reads to me like he's saying that normally, a confidence of 60% is the absolute lowest percentage required for analyses in general, but that he'd rather use a higher percentage than that usual minimum is required in this particular instance because of the audio samples used.

I did see those qualifiers, they just didn't make sense. With audio of this quality - what quality - is it good or bad ?

 

[sgtbaker]

I think you're far more wedded to a prejudgement about Zimmerman than I am.

Really? In what universe does, "not enough evidence to make a decision," equate to, "I've decided a verdict"? That's the problem with you reducing this to some dichtonomy that doesn't exist, you conflate wanting all the facts with belief of innocence.

 

[WildCat]

The problem is that he didn't follow the same professional standards that he articulated earlier in the same monograph.

Because "the samples were of too poor quality and too dissimilar for a meaningful comparison" doesn't get his name and company mentioned in every major newspaper and newscast in the country.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Because "the samples were of too poor quality and too dissimilar for a meaningful comparison" doesn't get his name and company mentioned in every major newspaper and newscast in the country.

By George I think you've got it ! Oh wait, I forgot about his high "scientific standards". Never mind.

I wonder how many people it has occurred to that if these guys admitted how inaccurate their "science" is, they'd all be out of work instead of making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year as expert witnesses.