Report Of Discrepancy -- Standard Form 364: Fill & Download for Free

Audio forensics tools use voice biometrics technology to analyze voice and assist forensics experts in their crime prevention andinvestigation efforts. By using these tools, forensics experts can: Determine whether a voice belongs to a specific person. Test to see if a recording has been edited or altered.The road to admissibility of voice identification evidence in the courts of the United States has not been without its potholes. ... Although many courts have denied admission to voice identification evidence, none of the courts excluding the spectrographic evidence have found the technique unreliable.I – IntroductionUuue validity and reliability of the process when performed by a trained and certified examiner using established, standardized procedures. Voice identification experts are found all over the world. No longer limited to the visual comparison of a few words, the comparison of human voices now focuses on every aspect of the words spoken; the words themselves, the way the words flow together, and the pauses between them. Both aural and spectrographic analysis are combined to form the conclusion about the identity of the voices in question.The road to admissibility of voice identification evidence in the courts of the United States has not been without its potholes. Many courts have had to rule on this issue without having access to all the facts. Trial strategies and budgets have resulted in incomplete pictures for the courts. To compound the problem, courts have utilized different standards of admission resulting in different opinions as to the admissibility of voice identification evidence. Even those courts which have claimed to use the same standard of admissibility have interpreted it in a variety of ways resulting in a lack of consistency. Although many courts have denied admission to voice identification evidence, none of the courts excluding the spectrographic evidence have found the technique unreliable. Exclusion has always been based on the fact that the evidence presented did not present a clear picture of the technique’s acceptance in the scientific community and as such, the court was reluctant to rely on that evidence. The majority of courts hearing the issue have admitted spectrographic voice identification evidence.II – THE SOUND SPECTROGRAPHThe sound spectrograph, an automatic sound wave analyzer, is a basic research instrument used in many laboratories for research studies of sound, music and speech. It has been widely used for the analysis and classification of human speech sounds and in the analysis and treatment of speech and hearing disorders.The instrument produces a visual representation of a given set of sounds in the parameters of time, frequency and amplitude. The analog spectrograph is composed of four basic parts; (1) a magnetic tape recorder/playback unit, (2) a tape scanning device with a drum which carries the paper to be marked, (3) an electronic variable filter, and (4) an electronic stylus which transfers the analyzed information to the paper. The analog sound spectrograph samples energy levels in a small frequency range from a magnetic tape recording and marks those energy levels on electrically sensitive paper. This instrument then analyses the next small frequency range and samples and marks the energy levels at that point. This process is repeated until the entire desired frequency range is analyzed for that portion of the recording. The finished product is called a spectrogram and is a graphic depiction of the patterns, in the form of bars or formants, of the acoustical events during the time frame analyzed. The machine will produce a spectrogram in approximately eighty seconds. The spectrogram is in the form of an X,Y graph with the X axis the time dimension, approximately 2.4 seconds in length, and the Y axis the frequency range, usually 0 to 4000 or 8000 Hz. The degree of darkness of the markings indicates the approximate relative wsystems provide high fidelity signal acquisition, high-speed digital processing circuitry for quick and flexible analysis, and CD-quality playback. The computerize-based systems accomplish all the same tasks of the analog systems, but with the computer-based systems the examiner gains a host of comparicircuitryThe accuracy and reliability of the sound spectrograph, either analog or digital, has never been in question in any of the courts and never considered an issue in the admissibility of voice identification evidence. This may be due in part to the wide use of all the instrument in the field of speech and hearing for non-voice identification analysis of the human voice and, in part to the fact that given the same recording of speech sounds the sound spectrograph will consistently produce the same spectrogram of that speech.Tic technique of voice identification base their decisions on the theory that all human voices are different due to the physical uniqueness of the vocal track, the distinctive environmental influences in the learning process of speech development, and the unique development of neurological faculties which are responsible for the production of speech. Opponents claim that not enough research has been completed to validate the theory that intraspeaker variability is less than interspeaker variability.III – THE METHOD OF VOICE IDENTIFICATIONThe method by which a voice is identified is a multifaceted process requiring the use of both aural and visual senses. In the typical voice identification case the examiner is given several recordings; one or more recordings of the voice to be identified and one or more recorded voice samples of one or more suspects. It is from these recordings the examiner must make the determination about the identity of the unknown voice.The first step is to evaluate the recording of the unknown voice, checking to make sure the recording has a sufficient amount of speech with which to work and that the quality of the recording is of sufficient clarity in the frequency range required for analysis. The volume of the recorded voice signal must be significantly higher than that of the environmental noise. The greater the number of obscuring events, such as noise, music, and other speakers, the longer the sample of speech must be. Some examiners report that they reject as many as sixty percent of the cases submitted to them with one of the main reasons for rejection being the poor quality of the recording of the unknown voice.Once the unknown voice sample has been determined to be suitable for analysis, the examiner then turns his attention to the voice samples of the suspects. Here also, the recordings must be of sufficient clarity to allow comparison, although at this stage, the recording process is usually so closely controlled that the quality of recording is not a problem.The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker. For example, if the recording of the unknown speaker was a bomb threat made to a recorded telephone line then each of the suspects would repeat the threat, word for word, to a recorded telephone line. This will provide the examiner with not only the same speech sounds for comparison but also with valuable information about the way each speech sound completes the transition to the next sound.There are those times when a voice sample must be obtained without the knowledge of the suspect. It is possible to make an identification from a surreptitious recording but the amount of speech necessary to do the comparison is usually much greater. If the suspect is being engaged in conversation for the purpose of obtaining a voice sample, the conversation must be manipulated in such a way so as to have the suspect repeat as many of the words and phrases found in the text of the unknown recording as possible.re final conclusion. The first step is an aural comparison of the voice samples. Here the examiner compares both single speech sounds and series of speech sounds of the known and unknown samples. At this stage the examiner is conducting a number of tasks; comparing for similarities and differences, screening out less useful portions of the samples, and indexing the samples for further analysis. An example of the initial aural comparison is the screening of the samples for pronunciation similarities or discrepancies such as the word “the” may be said with a short “a” sound or a long “e” sound. If thsxamined.During the aural comparison the examiner studies the psycholinguistic features of the speakers voice. There are a large number of qualities and traits which are examined from such general traits as accent and dialect to inflection, syllable grouping and breath patterns. The examiner also scrutinizes the samples for signs of speech pathologies and peculiar speech habits.The second step in the voice identification process is the spectrographic analysis of the recorded samples. The sound spectrograph is an automatic sound wave analyzer with a high quality, fully functional tape recorder. The speech samples to be analyzed are recorded on the sound spectrograph. The recording is then analyzed in two and one half second segments. The product is a spectrogram, a graphic display of the recorded signal on the basis of time and frequency with a general indication of amplitude.The spectrograms of the unknown speaker are then visually compared to the spectrograms of the suspects. Only those speech sounds which are the same are compared. The comparisons of the spectrograms are based on the displayed patterns representing the psychoacoustical features of the captured speech. The examiner studies the bandwidths, mean frequencies, and trajectory of vowel formants; vertical striations, distribution of formant energy and nasal resonances; stops, plosives and fricatives; interformant features, the relation of all features present as affected during articulatory changes and any peculiar acoustic patterning. The examiner looks not only for similarities but also for differences. The differences are closely examined to determine if they are due to pronunciation differences or if they are indicative of different speakers.When the analysis is complete the examiner integrates his findings from both the aural and spectrographic analyses into one of five standard conclusions; a positive identification, a probable identification, a positive elimination, a probable elimination, or no decision. In order to arrive at a positive identification the examiner must find a minimum of twenty speech sounds which possess sufficient aural and spectrographic similarities. There can be no differences either aural or spectrographic for which there can be no accounting.The probable identification conclusion is reached when there are less then twenty similarities and no unexplained differences. This conclusion is usually reached when working with small samples, random speech samples or recordings of lower quality. The result of positive elimination is rendered when twenty differences between the samples are found that can not be based on any fact other than different voices having produced the samples. A probable elimination decision is usually reached when working with limited text or a recording of lower quality. The no decision conclusion is used when the quality of the recording is so poor that there is insufficient information with which to work or when there are too few common speech sounds suitable for comparison.IV – History🥶out the pronunciation of that word than the dictionary spelling could ever suggest. His depiction of speech sounds demonstrated the subtle differences with which different people pronounced the same words. This system of speech sound analysis developed by Bell is the phonetic alphf spoken. This system was used by both Bell and his son, Alexander Graham Bell, in helping deaf people learn to speak.It was in the early 1940’s that a new method of speech sound analysis was developed. Potter, Kopp & Green, working for Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey, began work on a project to develop a visual representation of speech using a sound spectrograph. This machine, an automatic sound wave analyzer, produced a visual record of speech portraying three parameters; frequency, intensity and time. This research was intensified during World War II when acoustic scientists suggested that enemy radio voices could be identified by the spectrograms produced by the sound spectrograph. The war ended before the technique could be perfected.sources1. FRYE v US 293 F 1013 (D.C. Ct. App. 1923)2. US v WRIGHT 37 CMR 447 (1967)3. STATE v CARY 230 A.2d 384 (N.J. 1967)4. STATE v CARY 239 A.2d 680 (N.J.Super. 1968)5. PEOPLE v KING 266 C.A.2d 437 (1968)6. STATE v CARY 250 A.2d 15 (N.J. 1969)7. STATE v CARY 264 A.2d 209 (N.J. 1970)8. STATE EX REL. TRIMBLE v HEDMAN 192 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 1971)9. US v RAYMOND 337 F.Supp. 641 (DCDC 1972)10. WORLEY v STATE 263 So.2d 613 (Fla. 1972)11. ALEA v STATE 265 So.2d 96 (Fla. 1972)12. US v ASKINS 351 F.Supp. 408 (1972)13. STATE v ANDRETTA 296 A2d 644 (N.J. 1972)14. HODO v SUPERIOR COURT 30 C.A.3d 778 (Calif. 1973)15. PEOPLE v CHAPTER 13 CrL 2479 (Calif. 1973)16. US v SAMPLE 378 F.Supp. 44 (Penn. 1974)17. US v ADDISON 498 F.2d 741 (DCDC 1974)18. PEOPLE v LAW 40 C.A.3d 69 (Calif. 1974)19. US v FRANKS 511 F.2d 25 (6th Cir. 1975)20. COMMONWEALTH v LYKUS 327 N.E.2d 671 (Mass. 1975)21. COMMONWEALTH v VITELLO 327 N.E.2d 819 (Mass. 1975)22. STATE v OLDERMAN 336 N.E.2d 442 (Oh. 1975)23. US v BALLER 519 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1975)24. US v JENKINS 525 F.2d 819 (6th Cir. 1975)25. PEOPLE v ROGERS 385 N.Y.S.2d 228 (N.Y. 1976)26. PEOPLE v KELLY 549 P.2d 1240 (Calif. 1976)27. US v MCDANIEL 538 F2d 408 (D.C. Cir 1976)28. COMMONWEALTH v TOPA 369 A.2d 1277 (Penn. 1977)29. PEOPLE v EVANS 393 N.Y.S.2d 674 (1977)30. PEOPLE v TOBEY 257 N.W.2d 537 (Mich. 1977)31. US v WILLIAMS 443 F.Supp. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)32. PEOPLE v COLLINS 405 N.Y.S.2d 365 (1978)33. BROWN v US 384 A.2d 647 (D.C.C.A. 1978)34. D’ARC v D’ARC 157 N.J.Super. 553 (1978)35. STATE v WILLIAMS 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978)36. REED v STATE 391 A.2d 364 (Md. 1978)37. US v WILLIAMS 583 F.2d 1194 (2nd Cir. 1978)38. PEOPLE v BEIN 453 N.Y.S.2d 343 (N.Y. 1982)39. STATE v WILLIAMS 4 OHIO ST.3d 53 (1983)40. CORNETT v STATE 450 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1983)41. STATE v GORTAREZ 686 P.2d 1224 (Ar. 1984)42. PEOPLE v SIERVONTI, unpublished, Municipal Court of the Chico Judicial District, State of California (1985)43. STATE v WHEELER 496 A.2d 1382 (R.I. 1985)44. STATE v. FREE 493 So.2d 781 (La., 1986)45. POPE v. STATE of TEXAS 756 S.W.2d 401 (Texas 1988)46. UNITED STATES v. MAIVIA 728 F. Supp 1471 (D. Hawaii, 1990)47. PEOPLE v. JETER 80 N.Y. 818 (NY 1992)48. DAUBERT v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS 113 S. Ct.