Up next: Astrology experts


The latest silliness in the Trayvon Martin case is a report from the Orlando Sentinel:

Trayvon Martin shooting: It’s not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story.

[…]

Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library’s Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis — a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match.

After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman’s voice to the 911 call screams.

“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,” Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman’s voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he’d expect higher than 90 percent.

“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare.


Actually, as Tom Maguire points out, they didn’t rule Zimmerman out, they failed to rule him in. So let’s say they find some clip of Trayvon talking and the same analysis shows a 46% match. Have they now ruled out both men?

To be admissible, expert evidence must be reliable:

The trial judge performs a “gatekeeping” role in excluding unreliable testimony. The United States Supreme Court first addressed the reliability requirement for experts in the landmark case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Court laid out four non-exclusive factors that trial courts may consider when evaluating scientific expert reliability: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; and (4) whether the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community. Id. at 592-94. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael later extended the Daubert analysis to include all expert testimony. 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

The polygraph has been around for 90 years but it still isn’t admissible in most courts because it isn’t considered reliable. Here, we are supposed to believe that Zimmerman’s regular speaking voice on one 911 recording can be compared to the screams of an unidentified person heard on a different recording to accurately determine whether it was Zimmerman or not.

I don’t know about you but my speaking voice and screaming voice are somewhat different.

This report has brought out the pinheads in force to expound upon how the screaming voice on the recording sounds more like a 6’2″ 160lb 17 year old black male than a 5’9′ 200lb 28 year old Hispanic male. I would love to see the research data on that.

Assuming that this case goes to trial and the judge rules that voice recognition evidence is admissible, I would expect the defense to bring it their own credentialed experts to say it was Zimmerman screaming.

There are prostitutes in every profession who perform for pay. Expert witnesses are notoriously, uh . . . “flexible” in their testimony. That includes the ones on the government payroll.

Here is what we know:

The first officer on the scene stated that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of his head. The officer said that Zimmerman’s back had grass on it and that it was wet. He overheard Zimmerman say “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.”

There was an eyewitness named “John” who saw two men fighting. He said that Trayvon was on top and was beating Zimmerman who was screaming for help. There was another witness who made a similar statement but he couldn’t tell who was on top or who was screaming.

There was a women who reported hearing someone “whining” but didn’t see anything until after the fight had ended. She concluded it was Trayvon who had been whining. But she never met either man before and has no idea what Tayvon’s voice sounded like. Her conclusion is just a guess.

There is a 911 call of a women telling the police dispatcher that there is someone fighting outside of her home. The woman did not see what happened. You can hear yelling in the backgound, then a gunshot. This is the recording the “experts” used.

Not one eyewitness has come forward who directly contradicts Zimmerman or “John”. If I hear some screaming I can testify to that as a matter of my observations and recollection. My opinion as to who was screaming is just that – an opinion.


BTW:

Baba Maha banned me for saying this:

Sorry, but I’m not a wingnut. I am a liberal and a former criminal defense attorney.


UPDATE:

From the comments at Tom Maguire’s:

Golly, the Easy Voice Biometrics software has only been available since March 7. And the webpage that it is sold on is registered to:
Registrant:
Owen Forensic Services, LLC
Administrative Contact:
Owen, Thomas
Owen Forensic Services, LLC

He has managed to get a lot of free publicity for his new software product with this story!!


Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to Up next: Astrology experts

  1. jeffhas says:

    48% likely, that rules out Zimmerman… Therefore, it MUST be Trayvon. Talk about making the evidence fit the crime.

    Well, if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit… Oh wait a minute….

  2. crawdad says:

    Baba Maha banned me

    How many does that make?

  3. WMCB says:

    Baba Maha banned me for saying this:
    Sorry, but I’m not a wingnut. I am a liberal and a former criminal defense attorney.

    I’m not surprised. The bubble of the perfect narrative of progressives must be maintained at all costs. Don’t you get it? You either follow lockstep with their every narrative, or you are a crazed far right wing neanderthal, and a secret republican ratfucker.

    There is no shaded variety of opinion in this country, no graduations of conservative/liberal/libertarian thought, no free minds deciding what and how much they will believe about any given subject, or the extent to which they will believe it. Not according to them. It does not exist. Nonononono lalalalalalala I can’t heeeaaar yooouuuuuuu!

    You claimed to be something that does not exist, myiq – A free mind. Ergo, you must belong to the enemy.

    And that reveals a lot more about the secrets of their minds than it does the “secrets” of yours.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Is there such a thing as a conservative defense attorney?

    • WMCB says:

      It makes me sad, because Liberalism used to be such a mentally robust environment, before the current crop took it over.

      Now, the one unspoken burning question for them in every debate, every discussion, is Whom do you follow? Once they’ve answered that to their satisfaction (whether true or not), all intellectual curiosity ceases.

      “I follow no one. I’m a free mind pondering and thinking out loud” no longer exists in the Left’s universe. It’s such a tragedy, as that was once what Liberalism was all about.

  4. catarina says:

    From Ace:

    You’ve probably seen this by now, but NBC is doing an internal investigation over its editing of the Zimmerman 911 call.

    NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

    “We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”

    As a reminder, here’s NBC’s version:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

    And here’s the actual portion of the 911 call:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

    Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

    Zimmerman: He looks black. (emphasis added)

    http://minx.cc/?post=328021

    Let’s hope “Brad Pitt” is reading..

  5. myiq2xu says:

    I would like these experts to pass a test:

    Send them five sets, each set containing 1 recording of a person screaming and four recordings of people speaking in a normal tone of voice. In 4 of the 5 sets there there will be a match. In the 5th set there is no match.

    Use blind testing methods and see how accurate the results are.

    • Oswald says:

      A coin flip would probably be more accurate. That’s 50/50

      I’d be surprised if they were right much more than 25% of the time.

    • jeffhas says:

      Just test Trayvon’s voice – that should do the trick…

      Are you telling me there is no voice recording around? – Voicemails, Facebook, nothing?

  6. faketony says:

    (I tried to post this on Baba Maha`s site not realizing how thinned-skinned they are and still my comment sits in “Your comment is awaiting moderation” hell.)

    “I just watch a promotional youtube video for the Easy Voice Biometrics software. The software compares 2 known samples of Richard Nixon talking and concludes there is a 86% chance they are the same person (14% chance they are not the same person).

    I`ve listened to the GZ, TM 911 call and wondered the information value of comparing yelling and screaming to spoken word?

    Under the conditions to me a 48% match to GZ is starting to sound gosh-diddily okely-dokely good.”

    • WMCB says:

      Again, you are getting mired down in useless facts. What about JUSTICE!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!?????

    • jeffhas says:

      … and they banned you too. WMCB is right – it’s all about the single narrative, no alternatives are possible.

      • myiq2xu says:

        You three:

        maha • Apr 1, 2012 @12:58 pm

        you banned someone for denying they were a ‘wingnut’?

        I banned him for being an obvious liar. I’m banning you for being an obvious fool.

        Good bye.

        • DandyTiger says:

          “obvious liar”. I thought you were going to be more subtle in your lying? 🙂

        • WMCB says:

          It’s the Eyeroll School of Logic. I don’t have to point out anything you said that was actually a lie, I just have to say with a disgusted eye roll, “It’s obvious“.

          What that phrase really means, underneath, is “Truth is not determined by anything so mundane as being accurate. Truth can be determined by who the speaker is. I have identified you as a speaker who is not on my tribal team. All speakers not on my tribal team are liars, regardless of the content of their assertion. Therefore you are a liar.”

          Meet the new reactionaries. They are extremely conservative in maintaining the status quo and guarding their power base.

        • threewickets says:

          Well I give her credit for having an open profile on facebook. Her 600 friends are pretty much the progosphere…the same predictable crew of proggy noisemakers and regurgitators. They have become so tiresome.

  7. driguana says:

    “There is no shaded variety of opinion in this country”…yes, thinking for yourself in this country has become a thing of the past….sad, very sad….I have friends on both the left and right who no longer speak to me….but that’s ok….somehow along this calamitous path we are on, everyone is going to learn a big lesson….still seems to me that it will have everyting to do with respect….and especially, respecting differences of opinion and beliefs…or maybe as we go through these next few weeks of spiritual renewal….some lights will truly go on….I keep wondering if there was to be a true “miracle” in these times, what would that be? what would convince people that a different path is possible? keep thinking about Michael Rennie in The Day the Earth Stood Still……wholly weak…..

  8. myiq2xu says:

    More silliness:

    • myiq2xu says:

      The funeral director says there were no signs on his body that Trayvon was in a fight.

      But we KNOW he was in a fight. At least 2 independent witnesses saw the fight and several others heard it.

      There is a dispute over who started it and who was doing what to who, but there is no doubt that Trayvon was in fight.

      • WMCB says:

        Stop worrying over facts, you wing nut, and get on board for JUSTICE!!!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!!!

      • DandyTiger says:

        Obvious question, but if you were hunting down someone and were going to shot him like a dog, then why, especially if it’s someone bigger and more able at fighting, would you pick a fight with them? Why not just shoot them from a distance?

        • WMCB says:

          And why stay on the phone with the freaking cops the whole time? Or if you do, why not try to set up the scene by yelling into your phone “He’s coming after me! He’s hitting me!” before you shoot?

          Lots of scenarios are possible, but the most asininely improbable one of all is that Z deliberately went after Martin to shoot him in cold blood.

        • myiq2xu says:

          No, the most improbable is the one that has the cops lying to cover up for Zimmerman.

        • DeniseVB says:

          What’s really missing is the timeline from the initial call reporting a suspicious character and when the cops arrived. Obviously enough time for an altercation and a gunshot.

          So many questions, so little information to trust….sigh.

  9. myiq2xu says:

    Booman never disappoints:

    Once again, we have further evidence to suggest that Officer Tim Smith submitted a false police report.

    The problem with conspiracy theories is that once you start down that path the evidence become irrelevant. Any witness can be part of the conspiracy. Any evidence can be faked or tampered with.

  10. WMCB says:

    OT, but I gotta brag. My daughter in Austin had a gallery take one of her pieces for a show. It sold in the first hour. First thing she’s sold, and she’s very stoked.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Congrats one degree removed.

    • HELENK says:

      AWESOME
      what a great feeling that must be for her and you

    • WMCB says:

      Thanks, all. She’s kickass. Other pics in that album have her pursuing her other joy: rock climbing. She’s also learning to shoot. Regular renaissance woman, that one. Takes no shit from anyone.

      • WMCB says:

        She’s also, in addition to her art history degree, minoring in business and teaching, so she has economic options to run a gallery, museum, manage other artists, teach art, etc. As much as she loves pursuing her own artistic ambitions, she’s not stupid and unicorn-dreamy about it.

      • Lulu says:

        As another mother with a young daughter in Austin I can say she is talented AND adorable. Mine is locked in her room writing her capstone thesis and being very disagreeable.

    • DandyTiger says:

      Congrats! That’s great.

    • DeniseVB says:

      What a thrill for her….and you ! Congrats to such a gifted family 😀

  11. WMCB says:

    Hey, some good Occupy music for you on a Sunday:

    You ever gonna admit
    that the whole cause is shit?

    Occupy the truth
    and you might understand
    you’re getting used
    you’re working for The Man

    [audio src="http://www.thearmyyouhave.com/The_Army_You_Have/Occupy_files/Occupy%20The%20Streets.mp3" /]

  12. 1539days says:

    Banning sucks

    • DeniseVB says:

      Oh. My. Word. I’ve never seen a metallic camel toe before. Surely someone told her she’d be on national television aimed at a pretty G-rated crowd ?

  13. Minerva says:

    I used to work for a company that sold equipment used for audio forensics. The human voice is much like fingerprints in the fact that no two voices are exactly alike. The equipment used for audio analysis detects things that can’t be heard with the naked ear.

    I’m sure that Tom Owen did a quick and dirty audio analysis, but getting only a 48% match means that the voice screaming is not Zimmerman’s voice. If he spends more time analyzing it, the percentage is actually likely to go down instead of up.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Which company was that?

    • DandyTiger says:

      Audio like video analysis and detection is riddled with problems from both false positives and false negatives. Under perfect laboratory conditions you can get reasonable accuracy. But even the best of it is still not high enough for any measure of proof. I’d categorize it more like handwriting analysis than finger print analysis. Can be useful under great conditions, but still can be faked.

      Again, that’s under the very best conditions. In this case the audio we have from the 911 calls is very low quality. I would be very surprised if useful data for any comparison can be gleaned from that. My guess would be 48% match will be as good as anyone can get. Which if not obvious, is pretty worthless. It’s the level of accuracy you get from grainy standard definition or lower resolution cameras. Pretty close to worthless.

      • Minerva says:

        I don’t agree. There are reasons that Whitney Houston sounds like Whitney Houston and no one else sounds exactly like her. Same thing with Alec Baldwin. (Ever notice how many things Baldwin narrates and how you can tell it is him even when you don’t see him?)

        A 48% match isn’t a match. There are probably a lot of us posters who would match the tape in the 40% range too.

        • DandyTiger says:

          Voice, like video analysis in the best conditions can give us some good information. Under perfect conditions, like handwriting analysis, can be very useful. But it wouldn’t stand alone. Both can be faked.

          I think we agree that 48% is not useful information. It could easily be a match, just that the quality keeps the number low. Or it could be not a match, and the human ear could easily tell that it’s not.

          We don’t know, and the data we have likely won’t lead to knowing more.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Alec Baldwin has a fairly distinctive voice. So does Jack Nicholson.

          But they can be impersonated.

          How distinctive is George Zimmerman’s voice?

  14. Minerva says:

    I don’t want to say other than it was a pro audio company, not a software company.

    The Sentinal Star was nice enough to post the cleaned up recording Owen used. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/69143866/News/Trayvon-Martin-Audio-expert-extracts-911-screams-compares-to-Zimmerman-call

    • DandyTiger says:

      Again, the entire analysis is that they still couldn’t rule him out, but that the initial matching failed to definitely rule him in. So this analysis says very little. There is also a big difference in voice patterns from screaming (or even singing) from normal speaking. So there are enough variations and quality issues that this tells us very little.

      Of course I’m not suggesting one way or the other what happened or what this is. I’m just saying we don’t know, and sadly this just adds more to the pile of unknown and inconclusive.

      • myiq2xu says:

        I’ll believe in a accuracy of the “science” when it successfully identifies voices in double-blind tests.

        • DandyTiger says:

          I have to admit, what bothers me here is that the guy is selling a product that just coincidentally comes out just this month, and he’s the one doing the filtering and “cleaning up” of the data for the test.

          I suspect he’s motivated to come up with some provocative, news making, results, however he can do that.

          Fits with the whole damn circus so far though.

      • DeniseVB says:

        My screams as a soccer mom, roller coaster rider or calling my dog would never hold up in a court as being the same person.

      • Minerva says:

        There are elements you can’t compare with your ear. This article has an explanation of audio forensics: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan10/articles/forensics.htm

        This paragraph explains a lot about voice biometrics: “Voice biometric technologies utilise a process which, in simple terms, takes hundreds of ‘snapshots’ every second and extracts distinctive features from them, to create a model of the speech-production mechanism of the individual. Distinctive features are used to compare the known against the unknown model. Within adults, the speech-production mechanism holds a valuable key to our identity and its properties during adulthood, unless hindered by significant injury, remain largely unchanged. Voice biometrics is also language- and text-independent.”

        In other words, voice biometrics has more to do with HOW a person produces speech which is what gives each of us our unique sound.

        The analysis said that they could rule him out. You can’t rule him in when he is ruled out.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Like I said, I want to see them pass a double-blind test.

        • Minerva says:

          To be honest, I’d only trust the Owen data. I’ve never heard of the other guy and he wants us to believe his ear is good enough. (He sounds like some of you!)

          Owen is the Chairman of the forensics standards committee for AES so his credentials are as solid as they can be.

        • DandyTiger says:

          The analysis said that they could rule him out. You can’t rule him in when he is ruled out.

          No, they said they couldn’t rule him out. Just that so far they didn’t have a high match to rule him in. Yet.

          Of course voice analysis can be very useful and interesting. Assuming you have good data. Just like with video, if you have crap data, you have nothing. If the signal is low resolution and grainy and riddled with noise, you have less and less to match with. “Cleaning up” is riddled with problems and can lead to false positive and false negatives in very surprising ways.

          But even with bad data, we could still have a match with the scream and Zimmerman. Or with Martin. We’d need enough voice patterns from each to do a reasonable study. We could probably get Zimmerman do try to repeat what he says he did. But the best that could be done with either match, based on this data, would be questionable and probably useless.

          I’d wager each side will be able to provide experts that can prove the voice is the person their side represents. IOW, useless.

        • myiq2xu says:

          I love the way this is portrayed as an exact science when it’s not:

          One part of forensic phonetics involves what is commonly referred to as F1, F2 and F3 analysis. These are the first three formants of speech, which are resonant frequencies of the vocal tract, and differ from person to person. From these ‘F’ values the specialist is able to plot the data against a known sample of a person’s speech. Formant data can be affected by transmission systems such as GSM, so caution must be applied when dealing with mobile phones and similarly transmitted speech recordings.

          Different parts of the mouth, including the teeth, lips and tongue, together with the lungs, the vocal tract and vocal cords, are utilised to provide the many different sounds that we make as human beings. The lungs supply the air, the vocal cords excite this air and the mouth, teeth, lips and tongue shape the sound that is produced. Cultural upbringing, schooling and our social way of life also play a part in how we individually speak and communicate. The expert will consider all of these elements when trying to pin down a disputed utterance or unknown word for the uninitiated.

          […]

          The analysis and comparison are automated, but this technology is heavily dependent on a specialist to interpret the results.

        • DandyTiger says:

          Owen is the Chairman of the forensics standards committee for AES so his credentials are as solid as they can be.

          Just to nit-pick, but he’s not.. Though he has credentials, as will any “expert”. Again, I’m sure both sides will be able to have a multitude of “experts” with very different opinions. Hell, I’m on an AES standards committee as well as some for video from other organizations. That should tell you how much that means.

        • Minerva says:

          “”As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare.”

          What part of this says you can’t rule him out? “You can say with a reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman.”

          It’s NOT Zimmerman!

        • DandyTiger says:

          It’s NOT Zimmerman!

          All the evidence other than this points to it being Zimmerman. This data is extremely poor and of low quality, and couldn’t stand up in court for five minutes.

          I think you saying definitively that it’s not Zimmerman show’s an outrageous, unscientific bias. Period.

        • Minerva says:

          Dandy Tiger,

          What is your specialty?

        • DandyTiger says:

          “”As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says

          That tells me Owen is a hack and can safely be ignored. We have two choices. It’s either Zimmerman or Martin. He hasn’t heard or compared Martin’s voice. He has a low percentage match with Zimmerman’s. What if there were a sample of Martins that gave an even lower percentage match. That would mean it has to be Zimmerman. Simple science.

          The fact that he can come to a comparative conclusion based on only 1/2 the comparison, tells me he’s an idiot, a hack, and a fool.

        • WMCB says:

          DT’s specialty is looting, pillaging, rum, and the singing of sea shanties.

        • DandyTiger says:

          What is your specialty?

          Evidentiary based signal analysis for both audio and video (and other), specializing in 3d based analysis from various sources.

        • Minerva says:

          Dandy Tiger,

          Standards committee, not the technical committee.

          Myiq,

          Doesn’t almost everything need a specialist to interpret results? Even X-rays? Does that mean the X-ray isn’t science?

        • Minerva says:

          Dandy Tiger,

          Are you my neighbor? I live in Los Angeles….

    • threewickets says:

      Christ, they’re pre-rolling chewing gum ads against that scream tape. Someone should estimate how much total money this story has generated for the national newsmedia…even before factoring in the political investments.

  15. DandyTiger says:

    This audio (lack of) data is a perfect example of the circus we find ourselves in. There is nothing to see here. We know next to nothing. The audio quality is crap. I’d bet we could find “experts” and “expert analysis software” to come up with any match or non match we want with the data provided.

    What this does do however is provide the perfect empty, non useful information, that allows the religious followers of guilt to motivate their lynching. He may be guilty, he may not. We don’t know. There isn’t enough public information out there to draw any reasonable conclusion.

    A hooded lynch mob. Something about that sounds familiar.

    • myiq2xu says:

      I can’t imagine that Forensic Voice Analysis in circumstances like this occurs on a frequent basis.

      How often do you really need to identify a screaming voice?

      • DandyTiger says:

        Some alphabet companies do this sort of thing all the time. But even then, and that’s often under very good circumstances, it’s a data point amongst many others used for intelligence collection.

        The field is riddled with problems, just like video analysis. With very good instruments under great conditions, you can get very accurate analysis and have a high degree of accuracy in matching. But even then it’s not enough to stand alone. It’s enough to get a warrant and investigate further.

        In this case, we have crap data.

      • Minerva says:

        Audio forensics involve 911 calls a lot.

      • craterlakegirl says:

        This speculation would end if they got various screams from Zimmerman.

        • myiq2xu says:

          And from Trayvon.

        • DandyTiger says:

          That’s still assuming the quality of data from the 911 call is enough for a reasonable match. I doubt very much that it is.

          And remember, it has to be good enough to compete with a close proximity eye witness that saw and heard Zimmerman on the bottom screaming for help, and well as longer distance witnesses that heard the person on the bottom screaming for help (also providing details that the person on top was the one shot).

    • craterlakegirl says:

      A hoodie lynch mob …

  16. zaladonis says:

    Just saw this reported on a local NYC station and there was no mention of the 40% range, it was reported as fact that the voice is not Zimmerman’s. Meanwhile, during the reporting, pictures flashed of Trayvon’s mother wiping her eyes, the young Trayvon and of course the overweight Zimmerman in orange looking like a criminal.

    I’ll say one thing, it’s fascinating watching how a witch hunt lynch mob happens.

  17. Pingback: More on Audio Forensics | Shall Not Be Questioned

  18. faketony says:

    I`m starting to see this name pop up as a audio forensic expert – Ed Primeau from Michigan.

    audioforensicexpert.com/blog he discusses the case.

    I`m not really sure what Primeau concluded but be aware Opera didn`t render his site as completely as Firefox.

    Primeau does say in his blog “Can’t Convict on Less Than 20 Words” and “Voice identification is both an art and a science.”

  19. faketony says:

    (Doh, I see Ed is the other expert consulted by the newspaper)

    Interesting in his own blog Ed doesn`t come right out and say the screams heard are TM`s.

  20. formerly no name says:

    Piling on:
    http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/rn1ue/forensic_experts_with_scientific_certainty_it_was/c47ap2t

    the forensics experts state repeatedly that it’s not Zimmerman
    Owen said it’s a 48% match, and he would expect that to be higher in recordings of this poor quality, but also didn’t compare the recordings they have of Trayvon Martin (from his phone, other recorded messages that are available from him, etc.)
    “As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman.” You could also say with reasonable scientific certainty that it might be Zimmerman (since it’s a 48% match).
    Now, let’s get to Mr. Owen. Is he really a “forensics expert?”
    Well, no. He has a B.A. in History, not forensics.
    Well, surely since he’s an expert, he went to Harvard or Yale or Oxford, right?
    Well, no he went to Bellarmine College in Kentucky.
    You’ve heard of Bellarmine College, right?
    Well, but surely he’s worked for the FBI or CIA as a forensics examiner?
    No, but he did work for the New York Public Library in charge of their Rogers and Hammerstein archive – coughgaycough.
    But surely he’s written some books about forensics that the FBI and CIA use, right?
    No, but he has written extensively about the banjo and did a coloring book:
    Tom Owen, Scaling the Fretboard (Chappell Music 1973)
    Tom Owen, The Chord Coloring Book (Chappell Music 1974)
    Tom Owen, Tenor Banjo (Chappell Music 1975)
    Tom Owen, Lead Guitar (Chappell Music 1976)
    Tom Owen, The Classic Blues Singers (Chappell Music 1977)

    But surely he’s a member of the American Board of Recorded Evidence.
    Yes, he and his wife run the outfit. He’s the chairman, and she’s a board member. The Board is run out of a weight-loss clinic in Springfield, Missouri. They certified themselves experts by creating this fake board.

Comments are closed.