Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

BTW, are you folks aware that one of these two "experts", the one who posted the video where asks people "what do they see in their minds eye", said he uses a combination of "critical listening skills" and spectrum analysis? If his science is so accurate, why he is using notoriously unreliable "critical listening skills"?!

Even CNN points out that:

Yet standards set by the American Board of Recorded Evidence, which Owen once chaired, indicate "there must be at least 10 comparable worlds between two voice samples to reach a minimal decision criteria." While Zimmerman says more than that many words on his 911 call, the only one heard -- in the distant background -- on the second is a cry for "help."

What a joke.

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is where the discussion went off track. My bad. My point is still valid but I'll look at the 2009 paper in a bit.

OK, now I see. This was the paper it was suggested we all pay $35 for. So again, quoting from a paper we cannot see just doesn't allow anyone to see the context or properly evaluate the context. All I can go by is the abstract and I don't see that it suggests Owen cannot rule GZ out.

 

[RandFan]

I did not say that it proves Owen is not an expert. I just think my experts can beat up your experts.

What you "think" doesn't change legal standards for rules of evidence.

 

[RandFan]

there must be at least 10 comparable worlds between two voice samples to reach a minimal decision criteria.

What a joke.

"minimal decision criteria for what? Match and exclusion?

From your link:

However, because one goal in the Martin case might be ruling out Zimmerman as the source of the screams -- rather than precisely identifying who actually was yelling -- it could lower the bar for getting such evidence into court, he said. (Neither Owen or Primeau identify the voice as necessarily belonging to Martin, saying only they believe it is not that of Zimmerman.)

That's not a joke as much as you would like it to be.

In any event, let me reiterate, the expert opinion doesn't persuade me that it isn't GZ beyond a reasonable doubt. I would want and expect defense expert testimony for me to make such a determination.

 

[WildCat]

BTW, are you folks aware that one of these two "experts", the one who posted the video where asks people "what do they see in their minds eye", said he uses a combination of "critical listening skills" and spectrum analysis? If his science is so accurate, why he is using notoriously unreliable "critical listening skills"?!

Even CNN points out that:


What a joke.

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

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Owen is the great and powerful EXPERT!

 

[A'isha]

Even CNN points out that:


What a joke.

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

Here are the full standards that the CNN article quotes from.

These standards are from 1998, and it seems Owen's software is capable (or at least is claimed to be capable) of exceeding these standards. Whether that means the decade-and-a-half old standards need to be revised to take new technology and methods into account, or whether his software is a total inadmissible crock remains to be seen...though apparently it was admissible in at least one previous murder trial.

 

[WildCat]

Here are the full standards that the CNN quotes from.

These standards are from 1998, and it seems Owen's software is capable (or at least is claimed to be capable) of exceeding these standards. Whether that means the decade-and-a-half old standards need to be revised to take new technology and methods into account, or whether his software is a total inadmissible crock remains to be seen...though apparently it was admissible in at least one previous murder trial.

Owen developed that software?

 

[A'isha]

Owen developed that software?

I don't know. I tried to use phrasing that could be read as either "the software he developed" or as "the software he merely used for his analysis."

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, his degree in history is very impressive.

As is my instructors degree in agricultural economics, that does mean he isn't a network wizard. And was security administrator at the U of I

 

[johnny karate]

What?? How does me pointing out what a huge vested interest these guys have in claiming they are accurate lead to that "logic" in any way?

So if we must automatically be suspect of anyone having a huge vested interest in being percieved as accurate (read: any expert in any profession), under what conditions can we ever trust what experts tell us?

 

[johnny karate]

I did not say that it proves Owen is not an expert.

Okay then, what does prove that he's not an expert?

 

[RandFan]

I did not say that it proves Owen is not an expert. I just think my experts can beat up your experts.

Okay then, what does prove that he's not an expert?

That's a good question.

 

[curi0us]

So, is there a valid reason to reject Owen as an expert? Bueller? Anyone?

Hmm . . . I think if this were an issue brought up in court Owen's status as an "expert" would be considered valid but he would be completely destroyed by a defense expert. Owen's actions are actually contrary to his own earlier writings and common sense audio forensics practices.

It is ridiculous that Owen has nothing even remotely close an exemplar audio sample for comparison yet made a determination with "scientific" certainty. The software he is using may be very good at matching similar samples but a few snippets of someone screaming in a very different recording setting is something that is going to confuse the hell out of even an exceptional voice biometrics program. I would test the accuracy of the program Owen is using myself but it costs five grand and there is no demo. The website for the software does not inspire confidence, the technical specs link returns a page "not located" response.
http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=custom-built-computers

 

[lane99]

...whether his software is a total inadmissible crock remains to be seen...though apparently it was admissible in at least one previous murder trial.

Well, we'll know, with 100% certainty, if it's admissable in court after someone introduces it to one and it's accepted. But that still won't tell us whether or not the claims made there for the software are anything but a crock. Courts everywhere have a long history of allowing junk science into evidence.

If someone is wrapping themselves in the flag of scientific certainty, or claiming what they do is an "exact science", they should do scientifically rigorous experiments to prove it.

If they haven't, their claims should be met with considerable skepticism.

 

[RandFan]

Hmm . . . I think if this were an issue brought up in court Owen's status as an "expert" would be considered valid but he would be completely destroyed by a defense expert. Owen's actions are actually contrary to his own earlier writings and common sense audio forensics practices.

It is ridiculous that Owen has nothing even remotely close an exemplar audio sample for comparison yet made a determination with "scientific" certainty. The software he is using may be very good at matching similar samples but a few snippets of someone screaming in a very different recording setting is something that is going to confuse the hell out of even an exceptional voice biometrics program. I would test the accuracy of the program Owen is using myself but it costs five grand and there is no demo. The website for the software does not inspire confidence, the technical specs link returns a page "not located" response.
http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=custom-built-computers

Thanks for your opinions. I can't find much argument to address. The points about contradictions or conflict have been rebutted already. So, I'll leave it at that. You could be right that he will be "destroyed". You may well be right but I don't see the evidence for that.

ETA: the dead link is a fair point. Not sure how much to make of that though. I've gotten dead links from reputable sources before.

 

[lane99]

So if we must automatically be suspect of anyone having a huge vested interest in being percieved as accurate (read: any expert in any profession), under what conditions can we ever trust what experts tell us?

When they provide proof.

 

[RandFan]

Courts everywhere have a long history of allowing junk science into evidence.

And then weeding it out. The court also has a long history of disallowing junk science. It isn't perfect but we ought not assume courts are incapable or unlikely to be objective and fair.

 

[nadsat]

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.

Here is the CNN video.

http://videos.mediaite.com/video/Audio-Forensics-Expert-Tells-CN

Curious when he compare the exact same clip to each other it only come back with a 99% match. Also, note the "false rejection rate" of 12.35%.

12.35% + 48% = 60.35%. So there you go people. Tom Owens $5000 piece of software confirms there's a possibility it is Zimmerman's voice.

 

[WildCat]

Well, we'll know, with 100% certainty, if it's admissable in court after someone introduces it to one and it's accepted. But that still won't tell us whether or not the claims made there for the software are anything but a crock. Courts everywhere have a long history of allowing junk science into evidence.

If someone is wrapping themselves in the flag of scientific certainty, or claiming what they do is an "exact science", they should do scientifically rigorous experiments to prove it.

If they haven't, there claims should be met with considerable skepticism.

And let's not forget that self-taught (ring a bell?) fire/arson "expert" Manuel Vasquez got Cameron Todd Willingham sent to the death chamber on "science" since revealed as complete garbage.

 

[RandFan]

When they provide proof.

Hasn't that been established in the case of Owen? It's fair to demand proof but it's another to pretend proof doesn't exist when it's been provided.