In April of 2012 The Daily Caller Author, Chuck Rudd, interviewed Dr. James L Wayman who is scheduled to deliver expert testimony with regard to voice analytics and biometrics, on behalf of the Zimmerman defense team, tomorrow (Monday).

The prosecution expert, Tom Owen, was paid last year by the Orlando Sentinel to deliver his opinion regarding the 911 tapes and the voices for help. In his prior column Rudd Shared:

[Excerpt …] 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 The study is unpublished.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.” (Full article here)

Recently Chuck Rudd updated the issues and wrote the following article a few days ago:

[excerpt …] James Wayman a voice biometrics researcher at San Jose State University told The Daily Caller last year about Owen’s and Primeau’s findings, “I would be willing to testify against the admissibility of any of this evidence as ‘scientific’ under the Daubert criteria as required in federal courts.”

The Florida legislature recently voted to replace its Frye standard with Daubert, bringing the number of Frye states down to nine. But the change won’t occur until July 1.

Generally, the Frye standard, which Zimmerman’s attorneys are attempting to invoke, provides a lower threshold for expert testimony and opinion than Daubert which became the federal standard after a 1993 Supreme Court ruling. It is also used in many state courts.

Christopher Brown, a Florida defense attorney says “the way courts have interpreted Frye in Florida, they have opened the door to allow pretty much anyone who is nominally an expert in the area at issue to testify.”

Diane Mazur, professor of law at the University of Florida said, “It’s unlikely these experts can show their methods are reliable when tested under ‘blind’ circumstances, and that should be the standard for admission.”

Mazur believes that the expert testimony should be excluded from the trial but that people familiar with either Zimmerman or Martin can identify the voices at trial. “There’s no reason why witnesses or jurors can’t compare voices themselves,” she said. (read full article)

Dr Wayman’s Biography and Credentials are available – HERE