Audio Experts

Status
Not open for further replies.
2goldfish, I've gotta agree with this....

T's father was surprised with the recording and asked by LE (law enforcement) for an opinion if it was his son... he responded right away that it wasn't....

Once the TM family got their heads on straight and knew the recording questions were coming... they were much less likely to give a non biased answer. Furthermore, once they got an attorney, his job was to craft everything the family did to position for a civil award (read: defeat an SYG motion) and represent the family as an agent (trademark TM and associated terms, websites, images)...

They've done both of those things effectively so far... so I don't see how anything the TM family said after the first LE interview can hold much water...

Same goes for GZ's family... once it became evident the public outcry was going to be so great as to force the state to reverse itself, they went into protection mode.. but that being said, I haven't seen any outright suspicious or profiteering oriented....

As far as the mother knowing better, I'm certain that's a myth, it will have much more to do with how much exposure the family member had with TM, if they ever heard them under extreme stress, how perceptive they are to tonal changes and construction, etc...

Another point often brought up is the high tone of the calls for help making it impossible to be G... I dunno about the science involved, but I've heard huge 6'4" 300 lbs deep voiced guys sound like 12 yo girls when in great pain or startled etc...

So , in general.. I find it extremely hard to believe the audio evidence presented so far as being conclusive to IDing T as the voice.... in fact I find it laughable.....
Laughable? In what way?

And I imagine that a mother is more likely to know her child's voice than not.

As for the topic at hand, the FBI reported that both GZ's utterance and the terrified cries were not clean enough for identification. They recommended more sensitive headphones; but in the end the kibosh was put on any further exploration by the agent who requested the analysis.

Which also raises the question: if the FBI could not determine what GZ said after "f......g (?????), then how was the SA in their probable cause affidavit able to identify it as "punks"?
 
Laughable? In what way?

And I imagine that a mother is more likely to know her child's voice than not.

As for the topic at hand, the FBI reported that both GZ's utterance and the terrified cries were not clean enough for identification. They recommended more sensitive headphones; but in the end the kibosh was put on any further exploration by the agent who requested the analysis.

Which also raises the question: if the FBI could not determine what GZ said after "f......g (?????), then how was the SA in their probable cause affidavit able to identify it as "punks"?

BBM
To be honest I haven't read the FBI audio report. Did they really say that they need more sensitive headphones? I would hope that the FBI Lab would have some top of the line headphones that are adequate for forensic work. Do you have a link and page number where this is written?
 
BBM
To be honest I haven't read the FBI audio report. Did they really say that they need more sensitive headphones? I would hope that the FBI Lab would have some top of the line headphones that are adequate for forensic work. Do you have a link and page number where this is written?

The statement can be read at the bottom of the report. I believe it's a blanket statement that is put on all of their reports though because it doesn't make sense, to me, otherwise.
 
BBM
To be honest I haven't read the FBI audio report. Did they really say that they need more sensitive headphones? I would hope that the FBI Lab would have some top of the line headphones that are adequate for forensic work. Do you have a link and page number where this is written?

Well, at least you're honest about it. :) I haven't gone over everything either.

pp146 through 148 of discovery.
 
Well, at least you're honest about it. :) I haven't gone over everything either.

pp146 through 148 of discovery.

The FBI does not testify in court regarding their testing. So the State would have to get their own experts. jmo
 
The FBI does not testify in court regarding their testing. So the State would have to get their own experts. jmo

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying the recommendation for more sensitive headphones was aimed at the State? Not sure what you're saying here. What is the FBI's role here? :)scratching head icon:)
 
Well, at least you're honest about it. :) I haven't gone over everything either.

pp146 through 148 of discovery.

Thanks for your reply. I see where they say this. Is this the part of the report your referring to?
"It is recommended that a high quality set of headphones be used when listening to the direct and enhanced audio files to obtain the optimum intelligibility".

Page 147
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93951121/State-v-Zimmerman-Evidence-released-by-prosecutor
 
The FBI does not testify in court regarding their testing. So the State would have to get their own experts. jmo

Are you sure about that? How could any of their testing/reports be used in court if they can't testify about it?
 
The FBI does not testify in court regarding their testing. So the State would have to get their own experts. jmo

BBM

??

There was a parade of them doing just that, at that other trial in FLA


:)
 
BBM

??

There was a parade of them doing just that, at that other trial in FLA


:)

Admittedly I didn't follow the Casey Anthony trial, but all I've been able to find regarding FBI agents has to do with duct tape or a hair found in the trunk. Could you point me to something more definitive as my searches have been fruitless in regards to voice analysis. It's kinda off topic and 100% for my curiosity so a message would be fine with me.
 
Admittedly I didn't follow the Casey Anthony trial, but all I've been able to find regarding FBI agents has to do with duct tape or a hair found in the trunk. Could you point me to something more definitive as my searches have been fruitless in regards to voice analysis. It's kinda off topic and 100% for my curiosity so a message would be fine with me.
Kenneth Marr who did the analysis on this case testified in the O.J Simpson robbery/kidnapping trial.
FBI audio analyst Kenneth Marr told the court that he was not able to authenticate the recordings on Riccio’s digital recorder.

I don't see why he can't testify in this case.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/17/fbi-expert-testifies-simpson-robberykidnapping-tri/

Page 148
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93951121/State-v-Zimmerman-Evidence-released-by-prosecutor
 
Kenneth Marr who did the analysis on this case testified in the O.J Simpson robbery/kidnapping trial.


I don't see why he can't testify in this case.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/17/fbi-expert-testifies-simpson-robberykidnapping-tri/

Page 148
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93951121/State-v-Zimmerman-Evidence-released-by-prosecutor

Ah, I see. He wasn't testifying on a voice comparison. He was testifying to the authenticity of the audio.

“The bottom line of my results from … the test files … was that I would not be able to determine if the digital files were or were not altered,” he said. “I cannot say whether or not the files were altered,“ Marr said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
3,988
Total visitors
4,164

Forum statistics

Threads
591,535
Messages
17,954,173
Members
228,525
Latest member
Lefer
Back
Top