West, on cross exam, elicits that Owen's math background is insufficient to explain how the algorithm of analysis works. West offers Owen to explain what "Gaussian" means. Owen fails at that. West asks if the software has been submitted to NIST for evaluation. Owen doesn't know if the package that he has has been submitted, but the software company has submitted to NIST. Owen refers to a document from NIST to a person in the US who is in the software. West asks if it can be provided to him. Did Owen provide this to Mantei? Yes, maybe Monday. West also asks if Owen has the transcript - yes, it is embedded in the Soundforge output - as the sound plays, the "words" appear on the screen. Mantei can;t reproduce this in court, lacking Soundforge. West just wants to clarify that there is no written transcript, and asks Owen to repeat what he said. Soundforge does not recognize speech - Owen typed in the words he thought he heard, as it played. Owen identified 8 of 10 sounds as English words in the nature of "help" or "help me."
Objection from Mantei, I think, that this line of questioning is outside the scope of qualification, as this gets into word identification, and Owen will not be called to perform word identification.
Sound person on the stream has Nelson's microphone muted. I can't make sense of what she's saying. The issue is all around timing of testimony, and whether or not word identification is part of witness qualification under Frye.
West's argument is that he wants to probe whether or not word assignment (by the analyst) affects speaker ID, using the software. West covers the historical ground as to the state's intention to use Owen at trial, his initial categorization was not as a testifying witness.