By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
The chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, Tom Owen, and Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, have independently concluded that the furtive pleas for help clearly heard on the 911 tapes are not George Zimmerman’s. Both acknowledged experts used voice enhancing software, but different techniques, to rate the probability of the voice being Zimmerman’s at no more than 48%. A 90% match is considered scientifically reliable.
In a report published by the Orlando Sentinel, Owen said he derived his conclusions based on biometric analysis. “It basically just means using personal characteristics for identification. A fingerprint scanner is an example of a biometric device. Much as the ridges of a human hand produce a fingerprint, each human voice has unique, distinguishable traits, Owen says. ‘They’re all particular to the individual.'” The expert recently used the technique to identify the accused killer of Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.
Owen, who also served as the chief engineer for the New York Public Library’s Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, said that, “as a result of [the testing], you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman.”
Ed Primeau agreed but went further, saying that, under the known circumstances, ” I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt. That’s a young man screaming.” Primeau used the technique of voice enhancement to reach his conclusion. Unlike biometric analysis, his method does require an in-context sample of the voice for testing.
An article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer published in 2010 describes the 66-year-old Owen and his cohort, Stuart Allen, this way:
[The pair have] more than six decades of experience between them in the forensic audio profession. They’ve worked with the FBI and other federal agencies, police departments, private detectives, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and news organizations. Many courts have designated them as expert witnesses. They’re good friends who sometimes are on opposing sides, but respect each other’s abilities. “Both of us are known as sort of contrarians,” Owen said.
Primeau is a former sound engineer in the movie industry who worked with
pop stars Anita Baker, Bob Seger, and Barry Manilow. Primeau has over thirty years of experience in voice identification and is a registered investigator for the American College of Forensic Examiners. He describes his work in voice identification as:
There can sometimes be differences in speech patterns that can help identify clues in your identification puzzle. I look for several similarities as well as differences, nasal resonance differences, voice tone with regard to inflection both similarities and differences.
The test results seem to present another blow to Zimmerman’s credibility who claimed that it was his voice on the tape — and not the African-American teen — heard crying out for help mere seconds before the fatal gun shot.
It is likely that similar audio testing is being conducted by the FBI’s Digital Evidence Laboratory’s Forensic Audio, Video, and Image Analysis Unit, based in Quantico, Virginia. Should they reach the same conclusions as Owen and Primeau, Zimmerman would almost certainly face charges in the death. An opposite result would go a long way in substantiating his claim of self-defense.
Source; msnbc; Orland Sentinel; Cleveland Plain Dealer
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Mark, if you had any sense of ethical responsibility, if you weren’t a sociopath with the badge of a lawyer, you would update this post, and write a new post this weekend, discussing the science behind voice identification and quoting from the posts from Jeralyn Merritt, and Tom Maguire, and “Gucci Little Piggy” referencing the FBI reports, the NRC findings, and the statements of the other voice identification experts quoted in the various articles. And then you would thank me for the links.
Since you are the canonical arrogant, cowardly, gutless, pompous attorney, I will not be holding my breath.
I hope you do a better job for your clients than you do to Professor Turley’s readers.
Still peeing on yourself tonight I see, anon. You really are a variety show with one act, but its getting boring. Keep talking and cutting and pasting and I’ll keep yawning.
Let’s get to the trial and we’ll see what 12 folks who matter think — not some boob who thinks a courtroom is where the king lives. Ever seen one?
This is of course, exactly the same behavior you showed when you made homophobic attacks against Marcus Bachmann and refused to acknowledge that or apologize for that either.
Mespo, there is of course an enormous difference between my opinion buttressed by Jeralyn Merritt, Tom Maguire and the FIB that the evidence shows Tom Owens is a quack, a wacko, a sham artist with none of the ability he touts, and your position that even now he is believable and you have no need to alert your readers, or Professor Turley’s readers that there are significant problems in Tom Owen’s claims.
That is not some demand for absolute certainty on my part.
That is your arrogance, and hubris over-ruling what you know is the right thing to do.
On top of that when that is pointed out to you, you call me, a NAZI sympathizer.
That is not some demand for absolute certainty on my part.
Nor is that your gently tweaking tender sensibilities.
What that is is your play to garner the sympathy and play the victim card when all who read here can see that all I have done is shown how Tom Owens claims are bullshit.
It is offensive in the extreme that you would make this NAZI connection tonight of all nights, then not back off, then not apologize for it, then try to whitewash it.
Bdaman:
We have argued much about some things, but we seem to definitely be on the same page here. Well said. Now all we can wait to see if the wheels of justice do what they are supposed to do.
Bdaman:
I think Zimmerman said “coons” still, his claims of charity to African-Americans notwithstanding. My point is simply that anon is one of those wackos for whom absolute consistency is essential. He can only see in stark shades of black and white with a keen emphasis on white. When shown to be the fool 9as he so often is) he lashes out with the name-calling, irrelevant criticisms, and plain old fashioned mindless venom. Probably a reaction to his meds, but unworthy of reply regardless.
I thought I wold make an exception for this warm-hearted soul in this one instance, since he so completely disparages acknowledged expert Tom Owen. Just for my own satisfaction, I thought I’d tweak his tender sensibilities to show that he can’t have it both ways. As you can see he’s frothing at the mouth to say he can, but most reasonable folks see him for the putrid intellect he so obviously is. His vitriolic rant is as predictable as stink on garbage but not quite as interesting.
On the other hand, even in your contrariness you will listen to opposing evidence without resort to the argumentation skills of your typical fifth grader. That puts you on a plane with lots of other opposing posters here.
I’ll make final judgments when all the evidence is in, but for now, ol’ gun-toting Georgy Boy looks good for a manslaughter on an unarmed teen rap to me or in the alternative terminal wussiness.
Not sure for a man which is worse.
I don’t believe Lottakatz is a lawyer, though perhaps she is.
I definitely know Mark Esposito is a lawyer, though perhaps he shouldn’t be.
Lottakatz followed Mespo with a more ethical approach.
lottakatz 1, March 20, 2012 at 9:26 pm
OS, The alleged racial epithet was discussed on the Ed Show tonight.
Mespo, I want that tape cleaned up professionally by some unimpeachable technical lab and exactly what was said nailed down tight. This may be the lynch-pin aspect of the tape that allows no wiggle room regarding DOJ prosecution so I want it done with no way to challenge it if it was indeed a racial epithet. What I believe I heard (which is the same as what you heard) is not what gets the job done legally. I figure ‘the system’ will work as hard as it can to sweep this back under the rug if it’s possible to do so and I’d rather that not happen, I’d rather this be the start of some serious reform so I don’t want any errors to mess it up.
mespo727272 1, March 20, 2012 at 9:10 pm
OS:
I heard what I heard and I know what I heard. if the Grand Jury hears what I heard, I suggest Ol’ Watchman George dress up in his Sunday best, bow gentlemanly from the waist and kiss his racist ass goodbye.
Hey Mark, that’s a good example of courtroom logic.
I point out that Tom Owen is a crank and a quack distributing woo and getting paid for it by greedy lawyers who look to him to prop up their shady cases. I demonstrate that with the testimony of other voice experts backed up by lawyers in the field.
You go from there to saying my demonstrations if true means that if Tom Owen says the sky is red, it must be plaid and therefore it means what I’ve shown can’t be true.
Nice try counselor.
Mark you and everyone at this blog who felt/feels Zimmerman was/is a racist got duped. A man who protested by going to black churches and putting out flyers to demand justices for the beating of a black homeless person by a police officer is not a racist in my book.
How bout in yours?
Bdaman,
Exactly, and here’s how it works.
The seed of doubt that ruins. Years later, I still find it easy to associate Richard Jewel as the Olympic Bomber, even though we know it was Eric Rudolph.
Ruining the reputation with smears based on no evidence or falsified evidence. I’ve had to deal with that during my divorce. Crap the ex-wife threw around to distort the courts orders.
And Mespo who we both know, knows better, runs with it, because Mespo believes the ends justifies the means. And Mespo is convinced it’s okay to do this, because he is the good liberal.
bdaman:
Tom Owen says Zimmerman said “punks” but we know per anon that’s not right since absolutely everything Tom says is wrong. Must be “coons” then.
Oh come on Anon everyone knows he said coon just like they knew Richard Jewel was the Olympic Bomber
anon:
You’re particularly blustery and verbose tonight and full of macho vinegar. You’re also bouncing from topic to topic– me, Gene, habeas peititions, Tom Owen, even bowtied Tucker Carlson– you’re just full of disjointed thought, though with you it’s de rigueur.
Careful there someone might get the impression that we pay any attention to you. Get the staff to tighten those bindings won’ t you — and get more consistent dosing? I’m sensing a relapse.
Finally, I defy anyone to look at what I’ve posted here and put me into the Storm Front camp.
Rather, look at the rush to judgment of all the self-claimed putative civil rights defending liberals and decide for yourself which of us, Mark Esposito or me is more likely to come for you in the middle of the night rushing you off to the boxcars.
Stormfront, Mark?
The evening of Passover you is when you go Godwin calling me a storm fronter because I pointed out your analysis was flawed and your rush to conviction was based on nothing. You give lawyers, and attorneys all around the world a huge smile Mark when you represent them so.
Except for the minority of ethical ones.
Someone really needs to look over any conviction that Tom Owen played a role in and file whatever habeas paperwork is necessary to re-open the trial.
You lawyers were played, you know it, and you loved every dollar of it.
FWIW Mark, it does seem confusing to me too.
Gene H. is clearly a ton stupider than you are, and yet it’s you that keeps getting caught in these enormously embarrassing gaffes, and not Gene.
Gene H. does repeatedly get caught claiming expertise only to be found out a liar, but you’re the one that most often gets the blog post 180 degrees wrong.
It’s interesting.
“anon:
if I ever need you to edit something for me, I’ll just scrape you off my shoe and put you in front of a keyboard. No one’s calling BS except you and your storm front cronies. Attack away. Your gun-happy pal will be facing the consequences soon enough.”
Check it out, Mark Esposito, Barrister, Well Known Homophobe, Expert on Maine Mammals, is calling Jeralyn Merritt the well known liberal defense lawyer a storm fronter.
And of course, a lying weasel attorney like Mark Esposito can’t find a single comment in here from me ever making a comment defending either Zimmerman or stormfront.
It’s just the usual bullshit unethical attacks one can commonly hear from any cheap dime storm lawyer.
Well here’s some more, and yes, it’s from Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller,
Voice forensics experts cast doubt on Orlando Sentinel analysis of Trayvon Martin 911 tape and some blogger they publish that goes by the name “Gucci Little Piggy”
I mean read this Mark Esposito, and tell me you have any confidence in Tom Owen’s analysis:
Dr. James Wayman, a San Jose State University expert in the field of speech science, told The Daily Caller that he questions the grounds on which Owen based his analysis.
Wayman also said he would be willing to testify against the admissibility of Owen’s findings on the grounds that they don’t meet the criteria required for evidence in federal courts.
“There is no history of, or data on, the comparison of a questioned scream to a known speech sample,” Wayman said.
The problem, he said, is that the two voice samples were recorded in difficult acoustic conditions over different cell phones.
“Even if we were to have Mr. Zimmerman recreate the scream under identical conditions with the same cell phone,” Wayman explained, “it would be difficult to attribute the scream to him without a sample of a similar scream from Mr. Martin under the same conditions. This is clearly not possible.”
Reached for comment, Owen told TheDC that he has conducted his own study — “The Owen Study” — of more than 400 different pitches, screams, and voice disguises. The study is unpublished.
He explained that he has attempted, without success, to obtain a “voice exemplar” from Zimmerman, consisting of recordings of both his speaking voice and a scream.
And Wayman, he said, “assumes that the voice software is not able to make a determination on each voice independently.”
Wayman fired back in a later email exchange. “There is no accepted standard regarding metrics for voice comparisons,” he insisted, “either if done forensically or using automated comparison software.
‘Naïve’ voice recognition
The Sentinel also contracted with Ed Primeau, a trained audio engineer and registered investigator whose expert testimony has been used in dozens of criminal court proceedings. Primeau used a more intuitive approach to determine that Zimmerman was not the person heard screaming on the 911 call.
“That’s a young man screaming,” Primeau told the Sentinel.
Comparing the human voice to a symphony full of varying timbres, Primeau wrote on his blog that the “male voice yelling for help … cracks like teen male’s does when going through puberty.”
Dr. Philip Rose of the Australian National University told TheDC that scientific experts refer to Primeau’s method as “naïve voice recognition.” His influential 2002 book Forensic Speaker Identification draws a major distinction between naïve and “technical forensics” voice recognition.
“Naïve voice recognition is so prone to error that it is acknowledged that it is worthless as evidence,” Rose said via email.
A forensic expert’s job, he said, is to assess the strength of evidence, not to estimate the probability of a hypothesis. And “the value of the evidence depends … on the similarity of the samples.”
In a properly conducted analysis, he told TheDC, “you would still have to do the comparison using screamed and phone samples, with many speakers.”
One voice authentication expert whose work is commercial in nature told TheDC that screaming, stress, and a recording’s audio quality can “wreak havoc” on voice biometric software and its ability to interpret data.
And speaking of Owen’s findings, another industry insider said that “a legitimate biometrics expert would likely refute the contentions” and suggests that these were “incendiary publicity plays.””
If you had any scrap of integrity, or intellectual honesty, or even just an honest sense of “oh, snap, I’ve been told”, you would fess up and admit it, and do the right thing and update the post and apologize to Professor Turley and his readers.
Seriously Mark, you’re an idiot.
Mespo,
The facts are what they are….. And if facts were the single determination in assessing guilt or being judged guilty by a jury….. The OJ may have had a different fate….. It’s all in the spin to the jury…. And this guy seemed like he could sell an esikimo ice cube trays to go in his freezer…..