Author Topic: Voice ID experts  (Read 22055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #60 on: May 20, 2013, 01:35:33 PM »
Another witness (W19 I believe) who was across the way and several houses down (further away from W6 than W11 and W20) said she heard W6 say he was going to call 911.

W-11 said she heard W-6 (SPD, 3/2, 1:31-44)

W-1, across the way and one door down from W-6, said she saw and heard him (SPD, 3/1, 1:54-2:36; FDLE, 3/20, 2:03-20).

I think those two were the only witnesses who reported hearing W-6.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #61 on: May 20, 2013, 01:50:07 PM »
I was wrong. W-19 did say she heard W-6.

She had opened her back door to let her dog out. She saw W-6, and heard him say he was calling 911 before she closed her door.

W-19 SPD, 2/26
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 01:54:41 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #62 on: May 20, 2013, 06:38:09 PM »
Do we know whether those statements mean there was no sound coming from the TV (mute button used), or that they simply turned the volume down?  I think someone could reasonably say muted when either lowering the volume or silencing it completely.  I often ask my wife to mute the TV when I think I hear the kids upstairs and she always turns the volume down to a low level.  The volume button is used much more often than the mute button and likely easier to think of on quick notice.

On my TV, the mute button goes to half-volume before it goes to full silence, which takes two clicks. However, the main volume control is a separate button that you have to hold down to lower it.

I guess whether W11 completely silenced her TV is something MoM can establish at trial, assuming there's any need to explore this point. It might need exploration, though, considering that Reich's "findings" have been publicized to potential jurors.

Is it possible that any extraneous voices Reich pulled out of this recording were picked up from background activity at the 911 dispatch end, or just some sort of bleed-through in phone transmission from another call? (Assuming, of course, he actually heard anything at all?)

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #63 on: May 21, 2013, 07:05:08 AM »
So we have 3 witnesses at various locations (one was on the phone with 911 at the time) saying they heard W6 say he was going to call 911.  Does Reich mention anything about what W6 said from his evaluation of W11's 911 call?   I don't know that the wording is all that important, but it might help to establish a timeline for how much time passed from W6 seeing TM on top of GZ until the gunshot is heard.  I think witnesses have provided an estimate, but if he could pick up the words, we'd know exactly how long.

Also, does Reich say the "These shall be" words he picks up are part of the audible screams from the 911 call or are they words that are inaudible in any way from the call until he does his enhancement?

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #64 on: May 21, 2013, 09:01:07 AM »
Also, does Reich say the "These shall be" words he picks up are part of the audible screams from the 911 call or are they words that are inaudible in any way from the call until he does his enhancement?

The "these shall be" and a scream are the first things you hear on the 911 call. You can hear it separated from the scream in my post here: http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2392.msg109646.html#msg109646

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #65 on: May 21, 2013, 09:12:12 AM »
The "these shall be" and a scream are the first things you hear on the 911 call. You can hear it separated from the scream in my post here: http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2392.msg109646.html#msg109646

I can't hear anything that sounds like "these shall be" or even anything remotely like words.

EDIT: Ok, VLC player was screwing up. I hear something using MPC.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 09:14:35 AM by FromBelow »

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #66 on: May 21, 2013, 09:42:45 AM »
The "these shall be" and a scream are the first things you hear on the 911 call. You can hear it separated from the scream in my post here: http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2392.msg109646.html#msg109646

If those 3 syllables are "these shall be", then the first word is oddly overemphasized and the next 2 oddly run together.

Even if I try to hear it in some preacher's voice in my mind's ear, the cadence isnt' quite right.

Of course I listened without having decided in advance what I wanted to hear.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #67 on: May 21, 2013, 11:52:13 AM »
Does Reich mention anything about what W6 said from his evaluation of W11's 911 call? 

No.

Reich describes the report as 'a partial summary' containing 'illustrative examples' (p. 1).

For the 911 call, which Reich designates 'CALL3', the only voices he mentions are W-11 ('an unidentified woman caller'), the dispatcher, and 'two males involved in a very loud but somewhat distant confrontation just outside the woman caller's home'. He says 'One of the male speakers appears to be George Zimmerman', and 'The other male speaker was identified tentatively as Trayvon Martin'. (p. 2)

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #68 on: May 21, 2013, 02:45:12 PM »
Tom Owen asks $3000 for his deposition.  See here.  I am confused by the motion.  The defense seems to say,
  • It is unclear if the prosecution will call Owen.
  • If they do, the defense wants to depose him a head of time.  Before the Frye hearing?
  • Since he is a prosecution  witness, the prosecution should either pay his fee or the defense should only be charged between $250 to $400 an hour.
Since he hasn't been listed as an A type witness yet and apparently there is no report from him in discovery, I am confused why the defense is raising the issue of Owen testifying at this time.  Why hasn't the defense raised the issue of deposing Reich, Hollien and Harnsberger?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #69 on: May 21, 2013, 03:05:58 PM »
RJ, maybe Owens in on the Category A list under a W#. Reich and the Hs were. The hiding of expert-witness names is ridiculous, as is much of the other name hiding.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #70 on: May 21, 2013, 03:08:33 PM »
  • If they do, the defense wants to depose him a head of time.  Before the Frye hearing?

The probably want to know what he'll say so they can attack his methods at the Frye hearing.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #71 on: May 21, 2013, 03:14:33 PM »
The probably want to know what he'll say so they can attack his methods at the Frye hearing.

Or use his methodology to attack Reich's.

Quote
The first step is to evaluate the recording of the unknown voice, checking to make sure the recording has a sufficient amount of speech with which to work and that the quality of the recording is of sufficient clarity in the frequency range required for analysis. The volume of the recorded voice signal must be significantly higher than that of the environmental noise. The greater the number of obscuring events, such as noise, music, and other speakers, the longer the sample of speech must be. Some examiners report that they reject as many as sixty percent of the cases submitted to them with one of the main reasons for rejection being the poor quality of the recording of the unknown voice...

The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.

There are those times when a voice sample must be obtained without the knowledge of the suspect. It is possible to make an identification from a surreptitious recording but the amount of speech necessary to do the comparison is usually much greater. 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.

The worst exemplar recordings with which an examiner must work are those of random speech. It is necessary to obtain a large sample of speech to improve the chances of obtaining a sufficient amount of comparable speech.

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...

Offline Philly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #72 on: May 21, 2013, 03:27:17 PM »
Owens is different from Reich and Hollien/Harnsberger, in that he claims to have software that can compare screams to normal speech, and identify or rule out the screamer's identity.  The other voice experts that have been listed rely on more subjective listening/analysis techniques.

It's possible this filing is aimed partly at getting Owens to run his same "Easy Voice Biometrics" software that had "excluded Zimmerman" against the samples of Trayvon's voice that now are known to exist.  If this software turns out to yield an even lower likelihood that the final screams belonged to Trayvon, this is potentially useful for O'Mara, and would explain why the state might not be planning to use him.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #73 on: May 21, 2013, 03:28:00 PM »
Or use his methodology to attack Reich's.

Wouldn't that mean making him their expert, at their own cost, at the rate he chooses to charge?

This reminds me of something I've wondered about before, regarding the FBI experts. If the prosecution shows forensic evidence to an expert, then chooses not to call him, can the defense subpoena that witness as a fact witness? Any case law?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Voice ID experts
« Reply #74 on: May 21, 2013, 03:30:56 PM »
Remember that BDLR said the defense had declined the chance to depose one of the state's voice-ID experts. I think we now know who and why.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking