Author Topic: June 7th Hearing  (Read 13738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #90 on: June 07, 2013, 03:00:16 PM »
Defense experts prepared no reports, so whatever defense counsel had/has is attorney work product, not expert witness product.

So none of the opinions the defense got from their experts are discoverable? That would be surprising to me.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #91 on: June 07, 2013, 03:01:11 PM »
Yes indeedy!  Thank you.  State is done.  Defense has three more witnesses to call for purposes of Frye qualification.

And I'm in my monkey suit, ready for graduation ceremony.

Enjoy it!

BTW, does this mean you're soon liable for 4 years of college x2?

 ;D

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #92 on: June 07, 2013, 03:03:37 PM »
So none of the opinions the defense got from their experts are discoverable? That would be surprising to me.

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.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #93 on: June 07, 2013, 03:06:13 PM »
http://www.tracertek.com/

Also a site owned by Tom Owen. Shares a template and mailing address with Easy Voice.

It's almost like Owen is just trying to be an expert to fluff his businesses instead of actually caring about the process like say Dr. N.


Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #94 on: June 07, 2013, 03:15:09 PM »
So none of the opinions the defense got from their experts are discoverable? That would be surprising to me.
If they are just rebuttal against Owen and Reich, then maybe they don't have to be discoverable.  I don't think the defense should put anybody on to contradict Dr. Nakasone and claim that it is possible to tell Zimmerman is the one screaming on the 911 call.  Now if they call somebody to confirm Witness 6's testimony that there is a distinct echo to be heard from a speaker on his lawn, facing the house across the dog path, then that is a completely different matter. 

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #95 on: June 07, 2013, 03:18:41 PM »
If they are just rebuttal against Owen and Reich, then maybe they don't have to be discoverable.  I don't think the defense should put anybody on to contradict Dr. Nakasone and claim that it is possible to tell Zimmerman is the one screaming on the 911 call.  Now if they call somebody to confirm Witness 6's testimony that there is a distinct echo to be heard from a speaker on his lawn, facing the house across the dog path, then that is a completely different matter.

Nakasone was a defense witness. He was called out of order because of work commitments.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #96 on: June 07, 2013, 04:38:05 PM »
So now we know that Easy Voice Biometrics is a product of SpeechPro that Jeralyn mentions  here. They are a participant in the NIST evaluations. SpeechPro claims they only need 3 seconds of speech for an ID. The algorithms used by the software are probably tested and peer reviewed.
Unfortunately SpeechPro offers very little technical/standards info about their product on their website.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #97 on: June 07, 2013, 04:42:04 PM »
I'd be amazed if they claim the ability to compare ordinary speech with screams.  The only claim I have ever heard on that is Owen's 1985 study.  Has anybody tracked it down yet?  i doubt it was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #98 on: June 07, 2013, 05:02:02 PM »
Owen's bibliography has two entries for 1985.

Quote
Tom Owen, Advanced Signal Processing Techniques (International Association for Identification, 70th Annual convention, Savannah, GA July 1985)

Tom Owen, Restoration of Sound (International Symposium on B. Pilsudski Cylinders, Hakkido University, Sapporo, Japan. Lecture and Session Chairman September 1985)

It looks like both were papers presented at gatherings. No publishers are mentioned, so if they were published it would probably be as one of the collected papers from those gatherings. I guess that means they would only be peer reviewed if peer review was a prerequisite for presenting the paper.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #99 on: June 07, 2013, 05:03:19 PM »
I'd be amazed if they claim the ability to compare ordinary speech with screams.  The only claim I have ever heard on that is Owen's 1985 study.  Has anybody tracked it down yet?  i doubt it was published in a peer reviewed journal.
I thought he said he put it in a video and presented it at a conference. So at most there might be a conference abstract and no paper. None of the conference presentation titles at that time in his CV suggest anything about stressed speech. 

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #100 on: June 07, 2013, 05:09:14 PM »
Presenting a methodology at a conference doesn't make it standard science.  Notice he couldn't mention anybody else who after 28 years has also been doing it.  Does that make it satisfy the Frye test?

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #101 on: June 07, 2013, 05:11:23 PM »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #102 on: June 07, 2013, 05:13:23 PM »
None of the conference presentation titles at that time in his CV suggest anything about stressed speech.

That doesn't mean it couldn't be included in something broader, like 'Advanced Signal Processing Techniques'.

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.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #103 on: June 07, 2013, 05:21:27 PM »
http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=evbtechspecs


check out the pdf under 'additional info'.
They say nothing about preparing samples for comparison by pitch adjustment.  I hope the experts will address that issue tomorrow.  I wish West asked Owen about how many tests he has run to prove he can correctly match extreme screams to speech.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 7th Hearing
« Reply #104 on: June 07, 2013, 06:04:42 PM »
They say nothing about preparing samples for comparison by pitch adjustment.  I hope the experts will address that issue tomorrow.  I wish West asked Owen about how many tests he has run to prove he can correctly match extreme screams to speech.

actually it does. it says it's an auxiliary method and that it's not as reliable.

That's why I suggested you give it a glance.


 

Site Meter
click
tracking