George Zimmerman Hearing: June 7th

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 12:03:16 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Frye hearing continues in the George Zimmerman case. Voice analyst Tom Owen testified today.

ABC News has obtained a clip of video from Trayvon Martin's cell phone with his voice. To my ear, Trayvon's voice sounds much deeper than the screams on the 911 call, which again tells me it's Zimmerman screaming.

I don't think aural spectrographic analysis or biometric voice comparisons like Tom Owen's should come into evidence under Frye or Daubert. The methodology is skewed because he is comparing a scream to spoken words, there's too much background noise, the environmental and recording conditions were too different, the scream samples aren't long enough, the quantity of words for comparison is insufficient, there are pitch issues because the screamer was under emotional stress, etc. He can't even give an opinion beyond "probable" in his words that it was not Zimmerman screaming. [More...]

As to his biometric program, he shouldn't be the one to opine on whether it's accepted in the scientific community because he is the proprietor of the software and has made a career out of the reliability of spectography. In other words, he's biased.

Owen says he's only testified once on his biometric EZ voice program. He tried to wiggle on whether there was an admissibility hearing in that case. He finally conceded there was not. As I pointed out before, there was no forensic challenge in that case -- the defendant was pro se-- and there was DNA evidence establishing her guilt.

In my view, Owen's inability to give an "ultimate conclusion" due to the lack of sufficient data alone should be a fatal deficiency to the admission of his expert testimony. "Probable" is not helpful to the jury.

The jury can listen to Zimmerman if he testifies at trial. Even if he doesn't, they will likely hear at least one of his interviews with police or his re-enactment. They can listen to the 911 call and decide for themselves who they think is crying out for help. They don't need "expert" testimony and they certainly don't need unreliable, speculative, discredited conclusions.

The court is in recess for lunch.

< PRISM and Stellar Wind Programs | Friday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

George Zimmerman Hearing: June 7th | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

With audio of Trayvon's Voice (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Nettles18 on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 12:42:17 PM EST

now surfacing, will Mr. Owen run it through his program and compare how likely he is hearing Trayvon screaming on his 10 clips?

I think I heard him say this morning there is a 38% chance it was Zimmerman. What if Trayvon's sample shows a probability of less than 10%.

Would he change his opinion to it was more likely Zimmerman?

How convenient (none / 0) (#15)
by Redbrow on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:01:36 PM EST

that the elusive voice of Trayvon was finally released only after the Frye hearing was already underway.

That way these so called experts can testify with plausible deniability that they never heard or ran their ezbake software on samples of Trayvon's voice.

Does anybody really believe the prosecution has not ran Trayvon's voice sample through the magic software already?


: One Expert (none / 0) (#18)
by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:47:45 PM EST

Hollien and Harnsberger didn't testify, and I think Reich said he didn't use a computer. That leaves Owen.

Really? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by jbindc on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 03:28:22 PM EST

Well:

ABC News sent the short sample, gathered as evidence from Martin's cell phone, to a forensic analyst. Kent Gibson of Forensic Audio tells ABC News, a comparison of Martin's voice, Zimmerman's voice and the screams on the 911 tape, indicate the voice is more likely to be Zimmerman than Martin by a significant margin. However, he adds, so much of the howling and pleading overheard on that 911 tape is muffled or obscured, that only two seconds of the tape are useable. Therefore, he says, that there can be no definitive identification of "the screamer."
The FBI's leading forensic audio expert said much the same in his testimony Thursday. Dr. Horotaka Nakasone called it "disturbing" that someone would be able to make a positive voice identification based on the screams.

: the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#11)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 06:42:40 PM EST

was deleted for containing false information.

Any comparison made by the experts to Trayvon? (none / 0) (#2)
by cazinger on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 02:14:12 PM EST

Did any of the experts compare the clips from the 911 call to the now known voice sample from Trayvon (coming from Trayvon's cell phone, which has been in the custody of the Prosecution from the outset)?

Experts and Trayvon (none / 0) (#16)
by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:36:14 PM EST

Comparisons to samples of Martin's voice were made by Reich (p. 2) and by Hollien and Harnsberger (pp. 2, 4).

I missed Owen's testimony today. According to a forum post by Cboldt, Owen said he didn't have a sample of Martin's voice. I'm not sure if that means he never did, or just that he didn't have one at the time under discussion.


Thank you (none / 0) (#19)
by cazinger on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:51:15 PM EST

Thank you. I was not aware of that.


: My Pleasure (none / 0) (#21)
by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 12:12:41 AM EST

I forgot to mention that Owen hasn't submitted a written report, other than his CV. AFAIK, his testimony today is the only source of information on what he has or hasn't done.

zimmerman (none / 0) (#3)
by morphic on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 02:42:06 PM EST

What they should do is have two strangers screaming, than taped in a conversational tone of voice, to see if Owen can match the voices, which I personally doubt.

: I'd like to see that also (none / 0) (#22)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 04:51:57 AM EST

but to be a valid experiment I think they would have to run it more than once.

Did they have a recording of Martin's voice? (none / 0) (#6)
by cazinger on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 03:33:55 PM EST

My question is, did these experts have a recording of Martin's voice in order to compare the yells on the 911 call? If not, then they couldn't possibly conclude that the voice was Trayvon's. And, according to the FBI expert (initially brought in by the prosecution), there simply was not enough quality recording of the voices to come to a reliable conclusion about the identity of the speakers. If they did not have Trayvon's voice, they could not even do a comparative analysis to say that the yells were more likely to be one person's or the other's.

Going Out on a Limb (none / 0) (#7)
by RickyJim on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 05:01:15 PM EST

After today's prosecution disaster and the previous one I think they had at DeeDee's depo, Saturday will be worse as three defense experts rip apart Owen and Reich as not doing standard science to get their conclusions. The Governor and Attorney General of Florida get word that the jig's up and Florida will be a laughing stock over the heavily televised trial. The only question is how far into jury selection will they drop charges.

: I have not been following this closely (none / 0) (#23)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 04:57:50 AM EST

can you explain please? What do you consider yesterdays and the previous prosecution disaster?

Expert testimony allowed. (none / 0) (#9)
by cazinger on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 05:28:52 PM EST

So far, I think the judge is going to allow the state's "experts" to testify, as their methods do not seem to be new or novel. But I am not sure this is a big win for the prosecution, though, as these "experts" also didn't seem too credible.

I mostly watched (or rather tried to listen to) the testimony of Reich. Didn't he at one point admit that he didn't even use any computer analysis in coming up with his conclusions? His methodology, at it's most basic form, consisted of slowing the tape down, turning the volume WAY up, and then listening to it over and over and over and over. He testified that he had put in between 500 and 700 hours doing this analysis. I am sure that after listening to the same 6 minutes of audio over and over and over for 400 to 600 hours (allowing 100 hours for administrative or other tasks), he could probably hear all kinds of things, though whether those things are really on the tape or not is conjecture at best.

: I think he also heard (none / 0) (#12)
by citizenjeff on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:20:18 PM EST

"I buried Paul."

: This is true... (none / 0) (#13)
by unitron on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:28:45 PM EST

"...as their methods do not seem to be new or novel."
..snake oil has been around a long, long time.

: Owen's method is novel (none / 0) (#30)
by cboldt on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:44:31 AM EST

Owen's use of pitch shifting Zimmerman's known sample, to match the pitch of the scream, is known to produce 100% "no match" results. That is to say, for any one, single individual person, a pitch increased example will no-match that same person speaking in a stressed, elevated pitch.
The no match occurs because the relative strength of some components of the sound signal (higher formants or semitones or whatever you prefer to call them) do not shift when the speaker elevates pitch; but the act of pitch shifting moves the location of the formant peaks.
There was testimony yesterday that the pitch shifting method is not accepted, at all. It is not just that it would be new or novel. The method evaluates as unsuitable, it can't show a match on any given speaker.

Huh? (none / 0) (#10)
by MikeB on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 05:46:46 PM EST

I don't remember hearing that. Please provide a source.

But if we suspend logic and assume Martin was the one screaming (Martin was on top of Z. Z had injuries with grass stains on his back. Martin had grass stains on his knees. There were eyewitnesses to confirm), how do you answer that Martin's dad said it was NOT Trayvon Martin the first time he heard it. He changed his mind later. And I think he said it was because of an enhanced audio version he heard. I think MOM said there was never an enhanced audio available to witnesses. I would like to know that as well. The first time Zimmerman's dad heard it, he knew right away it was his son's.

But a question of intellectual honesty here. If Martin were on trial for murder instead, would you be ok with the prosecution having expert testimony using voices samples no system will use because of technical problems (length, pitch, power, etc). The guy today spliced together samples to create one a system would use.

I really don't care if Zimmerman is guilty or not. But as in most issues like this, I turn it around and see if the standard I am bearing would be the same if it were on the other foot. In other words, if your son were being tried for murder, would you suspend logic and accept the work the guy today testified to?

: Jahvaris also said (none / 0) (#20)
by FroggieLeggs on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 10:26:44 PM EST

he wasn't sure it was his brother screaming in an interview with a local Miami news station in March 2012...
http://miami.cbslocal.com/video/6895823-web-extra-trayvon-martins-brother-speaks-exclusively-to-cbs4 /

Zimmerman Will Testify? (none / 0) (#14)
by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 08:55:42 PM EST

How do you know?

: actually he may not (none / 0) (#26)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 01:32:30 AM EST

according to O'Mara today so I've changed that.

The "experts" seem to think they know... (none / 0) (#17)
by CuriousInAz on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 09:36:17 PM EST

..what a grown man under extreme stress 'should' sound like when he is screaming.

I suggest watching the Deputy Dinkheller video to get an idea what a terrified man sounds like.

I want to be a paid expert (none / 0) (#24)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 05:19:50 AM EST

I have a valid theory based on body type, who is more likely to have those notes in his vocal cords etc.... you can't scream those pitches if you can not sing them and a tenor would have the notes where a baritone would not. You can tell them by their speaking voice. You can tell (tenors as opposed to baritones or basses) them in most cases by their body type. I base my theory on years in the legit music world as a classically trained singer. Any further insight and someone must pay me...... but first let me go listen to their speaking voices one more time.

By golly (none / 0) (#25)
by Redbrow on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 02:33:56 PM EST

you done passed the Frye standard! No wonder it is on the way out.


: seriously (none / 0) (#43)
by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 10:14:41 PM EST

tell me which is the tenor and which the baritone? Do you know anything about it? Nope? I'd put up my methodology up against the "experts" any day of the week.

Didn't Owen testify (none / 0) (#27)
by Redbrow on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 01:58:10 AM EST

under oath that he had not made a single sale of his EZbake software?

Natalie Jackson tweeted that NCIS (actually she originally claimed NIST was naval intelligence) purchased Owen's software.

It turns there is a record of NCIS intention to buy dated March 11, 2013, but no proof yet if the sale was final.

Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) intends to award a sole source award to Tracer Technologies, Inc at PO Box 189 Windsor, Pennsylvania 17366 in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 only one source. The proposed acquisition is to purchase Easy Voice Biometrics software that is used for voice identification and analysis.

: No, he said there have been (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:24:43 AM EST

some sales after he gave the interview to the Orlando Sentinel. He mentioned the military buying one. He said he has not seen a sharp increase in sales of the software.
He said he doesn't sell it directly, a company calls Tracer Technology sells it. He gets a commission of 1/2 Tracer's profit.
In the last three years, he said he made $5,000 from commissions. He makes money every time it's sold. The software retails for $5,000 but sometimes it's discounted. The purchaser buys it from Tracer Technology. Tracer buys it from Speech Pro, maybe for $2,500, or less if it's a big buy or a law enforcement purchase. Tracer then splits the difference with Owen.
NIST is part of the Department of Commerce.

: video clip of exchange (none / 0) (#29)
by Redbrow on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:25:13 AM EST

Owen did not deny Mantai's assertion that no sales were made and did not make a good faith effort to divulge the government contract with NCIS.
Mantai: ...and no huge influx of sales...from the time rendered an opinion until now, that you are aware of?
Owen: (smirking) there's always hope!
@4:10

: Nothing Wrong With the Software (none / 0) (#38)
by RickyJim on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:54:00 AM EST

It did well according to Doddington (4th place out of around 45 systems) on the 2012 NIST tests for speech into a recorder but around the middle for telephone speech. The issue is how Owen used it. We can't blame WORD and PHOTOSHOP for what is done with them, can we? The cross examination would have been clearer if West asked Owen about other speech vs scream comparisons he had done with and without the software and how he came up with his criterion for a match.

Dead On Indicator (none / 0) (#31)
by friendofinnocence on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:15:11 AM EST

Any time the FBI is testifying for the defense, the prosecution is in trouble. Nakasone said what the defense experts are doing is "disturbing". I think he was trying to be polite.

Clearly, the real experts in the field say it is currently impossible to match a scream to a an individual. I don't know what more Nelson needs, but I suspect her interest isn't in a fair trial, just making sure she can get as much of the trial over as possible before Daubart replaces the ridiculous Frye standard.

For the legal minds here, shouldn't discovery violations be settled before the jury is picked instead of after the conviction?

On the technology and on the law (none / 0) (#32)
by cboldt on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:34:00 AM EST

Doddington testimony results in the following: if the scream was Zimmerman, and the comparison is between the recorded scream, and a known Zimmerman pitch shifted to match the scream, the analysis will ALWAYS say no match. This is an artifact of the pitch shifting process.

Owen got exactly the result that is predicted when pitch shifting is used - failure to match.

That is in addition to the defense experts saying scream matching is not known to the scientific community.

IMO, the testimony of Owen and Reich doesn't meet either Frye or Daubert. But legal principles are amenable to misapplication by use of sophistry. A determined judge can admit this testimony under the Duabert standard; and by the reckoning of most lawyers, the Duabert standard relaxes the need for scientific rigor, compared with the Frye standard.

As to settling discovery violations before or after trial, the system is set up so that any error against the defense can be squared up with a retrial. Errors against the state are settled before the trial, because the state cannot twice put defendant at jeopardy.


Thanks (none / 0) (#34)
by friendofinnocence on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 10:49:45 AM EST

Thanks for the information. It doesn't seem right to me that what has been suggested to be a criminal discovery violation by Bernie should wait until after the conviction.

I don't know what percentage of criminal trials end in conviction, but it seems to be almost all of them. (In her book, Amanda Knox said 95%, but I don't know if she was talking about here or Italy.) When important issues have to wait until after trial, the defendant will probably be in prison, possibly because those issues weren't addressed at a time when it would have been helpful to the defense.

I agree the judge would probably let these charlatans in as experts even under Daubert, but the summary I read of that standard would seem to clearly exclude them.


zimmerman (none / 0) (#35)
by morphic on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 10:56:00 AM EST

What Corey and BDLR should have done is taped their own voices, than screamed. Owen, IMO, likely wouldn't have gotten a match


yep (none / 0) (#37)
by friendofinnocence on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:41:15 AM EST

If it were a blind test I would bet money on it.


: zimmerman (none / 0) (#39)
by morphic on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 02:32:58 PM EST

I figure a dozen people in the prosecutor's office would be sufficent. I doubt a compressed cellphone voice has ever matched an uncompressed tape recorded voice.

Dr. French (none / 0) (#33)
by Mr Mark Martinson on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 09:37:57 AM EST

He was very impressive. He said that a person's voice in a traumatic situation can change in such an unpredictable way that you shouldn't even attempt a comparison.

Reuter's article (none / 0) (#36)
by jane on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 11:17:17 AM EST

Jeralyn,

What do you think about this Reuter's story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/09/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE95804Z20130609

Extremely biased reporting, IMO.

Almost every mainstream media (none / 0) (#40)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:04:42 PM EST

article gets something wrong. It annoys me no end, which is why I have started ignoring them. I'm just going to continue providing my own coverage.


Any TV Commentary? (none / 0) (#41)
by RickyJim on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 03:22:20 PM EST

Has the MSM contacted you about being a talking head during the trial, Jeralyn? No TV lawyer knows as much as you about it.


I stopped TV commenting (none / 0) (#42)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 07:17:41 PM EST

a few years ago and am not interested. 12 years was enough. The segments are too short these days and too crowded to justify the time. I'll stick to writing.


: but you were so good... (none / 0) (#44)
by fishcamp on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 10:57:18 PM EST

and we got to see you on TV...