Author Topic: June 7th Hearing  (Read 14842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #105 on: June 07, 2013, 06:29:05 PM »
If you are talking about page 5 of the pdf, they say that about the "Pitch Statistics Analysis Method" but that assumes you are comparing two samples without adjusting one so that their fundamentals match.  The latter is something that seems to be invalid and it is what Owen does.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #106 on: June 07, 2013, 06:37:25 PM »
If you are talking about page 5 of the pdf, they say that about the "Pitch Statistics Analysis Method" but that assumes you are comparing two samples without adjusting one so that their fundamentals match.  The latter is something that seems to be invalid and it is what Owen does.
I think the line "We can control and change this frequency (tone) depending on emotions and stress." caused the confusion. "We" in that sentence referred to all humans in our speech.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #107 on: June 07, 2013, 07:01:32 PM »
This is the first I've heard of the study. Is there a link to something on it? Or was it brought up in his testimony today? I missed that, and I haven't gotten around to reading that part of the thread.

OK, I found the part of the thread where Owen's 1985 study is first discussed.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #108 on: June 07, 2013, 07:06:15 PM »
In order to train software to id mortal screams a database of mortal screams is necessary. Someone did collect roller coaster screams.

I would think by now there would be a database of people screaming in the background of 911 calls.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #109 on: June 07, 2013, 07:09:11 PM »
One of the defense experts is Dr. James Wayman. He blasted Owen and Pineau when their opinions first came out. He is a  San Jose State University professor in the field of speech science with some heavy credentials.

The judge reviewed the emails to see if anything in them amounted to an opinion or conclusion -- it's not that they haven't provided opinions, just that the state thought the emails would contain opinions which would make them discoverable and the Judge said they do not, so they are not subject to discovery.

Quote
James Wayman PhD, Office of Research and Graduate Studies, San Jose State University, San Jose, California. SJSU served as the U.S. National Biometric Test Center from 1997-2000, with Dr. Wayman as the director, reporting to the Clinton administration through the Security Policy Board. Prior to his current position, he was a full-time researcher for the Department of Defense in the areas of technical security and biometrics. He also invented and developed a biometric system based on the acoustic resonance of the human head. Dr. Wayman holds four patents in speech processing; is co-editor of Biometric Systems with Jain, Maltoni, and Maio (Springer-Verlag, 2005); and is the author of dozens of articles in books, peer-reviewed technical journals, and conference proceedings on biometrics, speech compression, image processing, and network control. He is a "Principal U.K. Expert" and Working Group 1 Head for Delegation for the British Standards Institute national body to the international standards committee SC37 on biometrics; editor of ISO/IEC 19794-13 "Voice Data Format"; Fellow of the UK IET; contractor to the U.S. DoD and FBI; Honorary Professor of Biometrics, University of Kent; and member of the National Research Council Committee "Whither Biometrics?", the NRC Panel for Information Technology, and the former NRC committee on "Authentication Technologies and their Privacy Implications." He has been a paid advisor on biometrics to nine national governments on five continents.

Dr. Peter French is another defense expert.

Quote
Prof Peter French (Director) is President of the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, a Fellow of the International Society for Phonetic Sciences, a Member of the International Association of Forensic Linguists and a Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics. He is Honorary Professor in the Department of Language and Linguistic Science at the University of York. As one of the world's most experienced experts in the field of forensic speech, language and audio analysis, he carries out work on forensic phonetics, linguistics, sound enhancement and the authentication of recordings.

His CV is here.

The third defense expert is G.R. Doddington, who seems to a pioneer in the field of speech recognition. A ton of other experts, NIST, NATO, U. S. military and universities around the world still cite his work. He must be retired because he has no current website.

Zimmerman's experts are definitely impressive.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #110 on: June 07, 2013, 07:16:40 PM »
I think the line "We can control and change this frequency (tone) depending on emotions and stress." caused the confusion. "We" in that sentence referred to all humans in our speech.

Not really sure what your point is. Obviously the "we" refers to all humans.


Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #111 on: June 07, 2013, 07:45:20 PM »
Not really sure what your point is. Obviously the "we" refers to all humans.
Sorry. I was apparently incorrect. I was trying to identify why you thought the EVB document talked about adjusting the pitch of a sample.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #112 on: June 07, 2013, 08:27:24 PM »
Sorry. I was apparently incorrect. I was trying to identify why you thought the EVB document talked about adjusting the pitch of a sample.

Heh.
I mentioned the PDF just because it was the only place EVB mentioned it--and they said it was less accurate and needed a longer sample. Both things Owen didn't bother to mention (or mentioned the exact opposite) in court.

 ;)

Offline Zapper

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #113 on: June 07, 2013, 10:28:02 PM »
You'd think a guy who's been in court before would be able to not sound like a senile old drunk.

People with critical thinking skills might surmise that people with degrees in speech pathology sometimes have speech pathology themselves and why they become interested.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #114 on: June 07, 2013, 11:22:51 PM »
People with critical thinking skills might surmise that people with degrees in speech pathology sometimes have speech pathology themselves and why they become interested.

People with critical thinking skills don't surmise/assume anything. People with critical thinking skills rely on facts, good evidence and proof.

Do you have any evidence or proof of this alleged speech pathology? Or even it's prevalence in speech pathology degree holders?

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #115 on: June 07, 2013, 11:25:43 PM »
So far that's what it means.

If the expert produces a report the report needs to be shared. If they just have a friendly email chat about it, then it's work product. I really kind of thought Nelson wasn't going to look at the emails in the second folder MOM handed her, it was an inch or more thick, but I think she read (or at least skimmed) every one before ruling they were work product. Ruefully, I might add.

I got the impression that the emails were defining answers to questions posed by West in an effort to get better acquainted with the material he would be confronted with during the Frye hearing.  I never really thought that it would be an opinion. 

I was surprised that Nelson took up her valuable time reading every one of them.

Not really   ;)

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #116 on: June 07, 2013, 11:31:55 PM »
I got the impression that the emails were defining answers to questions posed by West in an effort to get better acquainted with the material he would be confronted with during the Frye hearing.

That makes sense. Thank you.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #117 on: June 08, 2013, 12:28:01 AM »
Video of 6/7/13 hearing, Part 1, to first recess, 73m 40s

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #118 on: June 08, 2013, 02:00:44 AM »
People with critical thinking skills might surmise that people with degrees in speech pathology sometimes have speech pathology themselves and why they become interested.

In the same vein, does his apparent lack of listening skills qualify him as a aural analyst?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #119 on: June 08, 2013, 04:05:29 AM »
He is saying what the NSA and CIA do.  How the hell does he know?

If he does know, it would most likely be because he himself, or people known to him, have been engaged to train some of their personnel.


 

Site Meter
click
tracking