Author Topic: June 8th Hearing  (Read 12161 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #75 on: June 08, 2013, 09:20:29 PM »
Now I am quite confused about what Nakasone does.  Is his job to run comparisons of samples for police departments?  If he is certain of a match, does he tell the prosecutor in the case to go hire  ::) wen to retest and testify in court?
I think Nakasone's job is to help catch the bad guys for the FBI, but he doesn't help with their prosecution in court. To the feds, it seems that speaker id is only an investigatory tool.
Of course, if he were subpoenaed to a state court and he had a match...

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #76 on: June 08, 2013, 10:44:06 PM »

I missed the latter part of the hearing, after the beginning of Doddington's testimony. I see in the thread that Nelson ruled on the curfew question, but nothing about two other defense motions I thought were pending:

Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding the Use of Certain Inflammatory Terms, 6/5/13

Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Spectators From Wearing Items That Depict Support

Were they mentioned?

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #77 on: June 08, 2013, 11:27:59 PM »
I think the defense should have shown Figures 3, 5, and 6 from this article.
Fig 3 shows how pitch dramatically changes under different types of speech. Fig 5 shows how most but not all of the spectral features change. Fig 6 show how the first formant changes, but the others not as much.
So when Owen adjusted the frequency of the exemplar to match the pitch of the screams, he completely screwed up all of the other spectral signatures that his biometric system measures and compares.
So it was preordained that the exemplar and screams would not match. That is much worse than a 50% random coin flip. For George it was heads you lose tails the state wins because of Owens idiotic methodology.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #78 on: June 09, 2013, 03:47:02 AM »
I think the defense should have shown Figures 3, 5, and 6 from this article.
Fig 3 shows how pitch dramatically changes under different types of speech. Fig 5 shows how most but not all of the spectral features change. Fig 6 show how the first formant changes, but the others not as much.
So when Owen adjusted the frequency of the exemplar to match the pitch of the screams, he completely screwed up all of the other spectral signatures that his biometric system measures and compares.
So it was preordained that the exemplar and screams would not match. That is much worse than a 50% random coin flip. For George it was heads you lose tails the state wins because of Owens idiotic methodology.

Very interesting article, thank you.  Did you notice the "recognition rate" table at Fig. 7?  20% recognition rate for angry speech, and I'll opine, with justification, that extreme fear produces even more pronounced departure from normal/neutral speech, than anger does.

Your point about the Owen's method is well and succinctly stated.  I think Doddington said the same thing.  The pitch increase guarantees a mismatch.  The state implied that pitch increase being applied to a known speaker somehow improves the reliability of the match/no-match; but it appears that the Owen method of voice-match rule-out will produce 100% no-match results given any single speaker.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #79 on: June 09, 2013, 04:27:03 AM »
Too late to add as an edit: The article is titled "Speech Under Stress, Analysis, Modeling and Recognition" by John H.L. Hansen and Sanjay A. Patil, Center for Robust Speech Systems, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson.  January 2007.

One of the purposes of the study was to improve understanding of stress detection, using voice as the only cue.  As I mentioned, good article, much of which is in the layman's grasp.

A google search using the terms speech under stress produces quite a bit of output.  Many interesting articles, etc.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #80 on: June 09, 2013, 06:41:11 AM »

Your point about the Owen's method is well and succinctly stated.  I think Doddington said the same thing.  The pitch increase guarantees a mismatch.  The state implied that pitch increase being applied to a known speaker somehow improves the reliability of the match/no-match; but it appears that the Owen method of voice-match rule-out will produce 100% no-match results given any single speaker.
Agreed. Doddington said the same thing. Perhaps I am underestimating Nelson, but I fear it whizzed over her head. I think this stuff needs to be shown in a few informative graphs using simple clear language. If Owen gets through the evidentiary hearing, the defense needs to improve their ability to explain these issues to the jury. In fact they need an expert to explain these issues more clearly to OMara.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #81 on: June 09, 2013, 06:49:10 AM »
I missed the latter part of the hearing, after the beginning of Doddington's testimony. I see in the thread that Nelson ruled on the curfew question, but nothing about two other defense motions I thought were pending:

Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding the Use of Certain Inflammatory Terms, 6/5/13

Defendant's Motion to Prohibit Spectators From Wearing Items That Depict Support

Were they mentioned?

I don't believe so. I wandered away during the recess while they were setting up for the last defense expert, came back 10-15 minutes later and they were done for the day.

West and MOM tried to get her to address them during 'wait for the witnesses to be ready downtime' but she didn't want to be in the middle of one thing and have to do another thing.

Like she hasn't been doing that so far anyway.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #82 on: June 09, 2013, 06:53:06 AM »
Agreed. Doddington said the same thing. Perhaps I am underestimating Nelson, but I fear it whizzed over her head. I think this stuff needs to be shown in a few informative graphs using simple clear language. If Owen gets through the evidentiary hearing, the defense needs to improve their ability to explain these issues to the jury. In fact they need an expert to explain these issues more clearly to OMara.

cboldt mentioned yesterday--maybe to you, I forget--that it's MOM's job to pull the answers out of the expert. So MOM appears (and maybe is) as a complete goof on the subject, and asks questions that might appear foolish to some, but are aimed at the LCD (in trial, that's the stupidest person on the jury, right now--it's Nelson, who might have gotten through law school but has demonstrated a lack of intellectual ability. Then again, how smart do judges need to be, since no one challenges them ever (as an opinionated aside)).

I wish MOM had been able to keep a better focus, but his witness at didn't really want to be kept focused.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #83 on: June 09, 2013, 07:01:27 AM »
Agreed. Doddington said the same thing. Perhaps I am underestimating Nelson, but I fear it whizzed over her head. I think this stuff needs to be shown in a few informative graphs using simple clear language. If Owen gets through the evidentiary hearing, the defense needs to improve their ability to explain these issues to the jury. In fact they need an expert to explain these issues more clearly to OMara.

I don't know Nelson, but my bias is that the technical material goes over her head.  She doesn't have the background to facilitate processing the information that is coming to her. That is generally true of lawyers, other than the patent guys/gals.  O'Mara the same, as a matter of technical understanding.  Yes, a good expert educates his client, the lawyer, first.  But that process takes time, and O'Mara has his hands and mind full of the legal issues too, so he may be a "difficult" student for all sorts of reasons.

I think French was the better expert, but his information is easily couched as directly opposite Owen and Reich, as all three are in the business of forensic analysis.  Doddinton is brilliant, but not so good as an expert.  A good expert will correlate the expert's input to the case, in a simple way.  In short, will take the lead role, even to the point of rephrasing questions, noting questions that may be interesting or relevant in a general sense but don't fit the facts of this case, and otherwise be the primary force in keeping the flow of Q&A useful to the case.  A good expert will know how to succinctly express his opinion in a way that unequivocally leads to a certain outcome under the issue at hand - in this case the issue being the admissibility of Owen and/or Reich under the relevant legal standard.

Assuming Owen and Reich are admitted, French and Doddinton (and O'Mara) will spend considerable time and effort to make their presentations more concise and to the point; and more clear.  Diagrams and other aids will no doubt be brought to bear on the education process.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #84 on: June 09, 2013, 07:13:22 AM »
I wish MOM had been able to keep a better focus, but his witness at didn't really want to be kept focused.

Doddington is not a good expert, viewing expert as a link between technology and the law.  He's brilliant in his field, but allows (maybe insists) the lawyer to do all the driving and navigating.  That hands-off approach of Doddington would be okay if the lawyer has a reasonable grasp of how to make the links.

I think O'Mara learns from mistakes and experience, so any future performance will be an improvement.

Part of O'mara's problem is that he doesn't make his own logical process transparent, even when the issue has no scientific/technical content.  He does much better in written motions than he does in speaking.  Both he and West have demonstrated outstanding ability to react to sudden and unexpected developments, so they are plenty intelligent.  Communication is a difficult art, and it's easy to be critical using hindsight.  After saying all that, I think they are plenty competent.  Anybody can improve, but O'Mara doesn't need to improve in order to get this technical point across.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #85 on: June 09, 2013, 08:45:52 AM »
A detailed report on the June 8th hearing.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #86 on: June 09, 2013, 09:01:24 AM »
Doddington is not a good expert, viewing expert as a link between technology and the law.  He's brilliant in his field, but allows (maybe insists) the lawyer to do all the driving and navigating.  That hands-off approach of Doddington would be okay if the lawyer has a reasonable grasp of how to make the links.

I think O'Mara learns from mistakes and experience, so any future performance will be an improvement.

Part of O'mara's problem is that he doesn't make his own logical process transparent, even when the issue has no scientific/technical content.  He does much better in written motions than he does in speaking.  Both he and West have demonstrated outstanding ability to react to sudden and unexpected developments, so they are plenty intelligent.  Communication is a difficult art, and it's easy to be critical using hindsight.  After saying all that, I think they are plenty competent.  Anybody can improve, but O'Mara doesn't need to improve in order to get this technical point across.


Unless the whole point of Doddington's testimony was to establish that someone who's been in the voice ID business since the beginning yada yada etc has  nothing but contempt for both Owen and Reich and their methodology.

Doddington's CV against Owen's years of experience as a recording engineer who happened to hook up with some software people and created a couple of associations where he elected himself president and created a school where he's the chief instructor.

Not so much an argument against the methodology as an argument that "man, this guy is pathetic. I say so, and look at my qualifications--I've actually done all the stuff he tries to claim he's done".


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #87 on: June 09, 2013, 09:37:25 AM »

Unless the whole point of Doddington's testimony was to establish that someone who's been in the voice ID business since the beginning yada yada etc has  nothing but contempt for both Owen and Reich and their methodology.

Doddington's CV against Owen's years of experience as a recording engineer who happened to hook up with some software people and created a couple of associations where he elected himself president and created a school where he's the chief instructor.

Not so much an argument against the methodology as an argument that "man, this guy is pathetic. I say so, and look at my qualifications--I've actually done all the stuff he tries to claim he's done".

Doddington's testimony and rational was substantive, but on a different level or coming from a different direction than forensic analysis per se.  He knows voice, he knows how voice is digitized, he knows the statistics behind pattern match probabilities, etc.  But he does not use his expertise to evaluate voice match or related activities.  He is skilled at evaluating the tools that are used to voice match.

His criticism of Owen was substantive on the science, not at all based on appeal to credentials or lack, but the way it was presented might as well been in Chinese for 90% of the English-speaking people listening to it.  As a matter of scientific principle, what Owen claimed to do is impossible and what Reich claimed to hear is imaginary.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #88 on: June 09, 2013, 10:45:32 AM »
That's sort of where I was going. Doddington's testimony was coming from the direction of "look--I've been in this my whole life. I either invented most of this stuff or I was there with the guys who invented it. I know what can and can't be done here because I've done it, worked on it or seen it worked on. These guys are an insult to me and to the scientific community. Shoot--I've even done a bunch of stuff I can't tell you about for people I can't mention. Owen? The guy who did tape transfer for Rogers and Hammerstein? Ha. Let me tell you about the time back at Texas Instruments when we.....or let me tell you about how we taught the F-16 to recognize voice commands and how difficult that was."

Or something like that.


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: June 8th Hearing
« Reply #89 on: June 09, 2013, 10:58:35 AM »
That's sort of where I was going. Doddington's testimony was coming from the direction of "look--I've been in this my whole life. I either invented most of this stuff or I was there with the guys who invented it. I know what can and can't be done here because I've done it, worked on it or seen it worked on. These guys are an insult to me and to the scientific community. Shoot--I've even done a bunch of stuff I can't tell you about for people I can't mention. Owen? The guy who did tape transfer for Rogers and Hammerstein? Ha. Let me tell you about the time back at Texas Instruments when we.....or let me tell you about how we taught the F-16 to recognize voice commands and how difficult that was."

Or something like that.

The way I see it, that describes a raw appeal to experience that I think Doddington at least shies away from, and probably outright rejects.  He's open minded, show him the (mathematical) technique, and prove that it works, and he's be giddy about it - if it works.  "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."  His criticism of Owen and Reich was based on their abusive overextension of science.  The reason the claims of Owen and Reich don't stand is because of science, not because Owen and Reich are undereducated or greenhorns.

Doddington needs to have an established scientific grounding in order to assert science against the quacks.  My impression is that he'd accept the results of a properly grounded and tested method, even if the results came from an undereducated greenhorn.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking