Sound "expert" Tom Owen now says only 60% needed to "feel confident" (So 48% means NOTHING)

CNN ^ | 04/02/2012 | CNN wire staff

[gopcharger]

"Sound expert" Owen used software to compare a scream heard outside over a 911 call inside a home to a voice heard speaking into a cellphone on a 911 call. As many freepers pointed out, 48% as a "scientific certainty" of anything was a lie.

Owen two days ago:

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.

Owen now:

Owen, a forensic audio analyst and chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, also said he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman. He cited software frequently used to analyze voices in legal cases, by investigating characteristics such as pitch and the space between spoken words, that found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.

And they're still lying. If 60% means "confidence" it is a match then 48% does not mean "unlikely."

[The Duke]

PSEUDO_”SCIENCE”_PING!

[cicero2k]

The sound expert’s Resume:

Previous Employment
1. Climate change researcher.
2. Solar energy manufacturing.
3. Community organizer.

[Vendome]

yep. the voice will modulate.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This is the same kind of magic computer program that constitutes “scientific” proof of global warming or climate change or whatever the Hell they are calling it today.

[Lex Gabba]

I think you may be misunderstanding what the man is saying because he’s couching it in the kinds of terms you usually see in courtrooms. What he’s saying is that in an audio of this quality you would expect it to match up about 90% with a voice exemplar (sample of the person’s voice) to be considered a forensic match. Since it doesn’t match 90% he’s saying that with what he considers to be a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, it is NOT Zimmerman

You can argue with his conclusion, but that’s what he’s saying

[gopcharger]

I think you may be misunderstanding what the man is saying because he’s couching it in the kinds of terms you usually see in courtrooms. What he’s saying is that in an audio of this quality you would expect it to match up about 90% with a voice exemplar (sample of the person’s voice) to be considered a forensic match. Since it doesn’t match 90% he’s saying that with what he considers to be a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, it is NOT Zimmerman You can argue with his conclusion, but that’s what he’s saying

he says in the OS article he can say with scientific certainty it is not Zim because it does not reach 90% (his own site says comparing these two samples is useless by the way)

then he told CNN that 60% would justify "confidence" that it is Zimmerman.

The guy is an idiot.

[STJPII]

This. The basis for this experts opinion is clearly insufficient. WTH was NBC thinking?

[SunTzuWu]

I seem to remember the press reporting weeks ago that the 911 tapes were played for Martin’s father. His father said that the voice screaming for help was not his son’s voice.