Comments on: Cries For Help: Voice Recognition Analysis In Trayvon Martin Case

By: Dana Heintz

Dana Heintz — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:30:00 +0000

I am looking for a program or app which provides voice recognition. I need it for an upcoming court case…anyone? Thanks

By: win

win — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:48:00 +0000

If the article said it was “proven” then it is false. There is not 100% for fingerprint analysis even, and voice recognition is much more difficult.
That is a scientific fact.
So much for the “experts” quoted in the mainstream media.

By: Screwyou

Screwyou — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 18:24:00 +0000

In reply to Evanlives. LOL you obviously dont have a clue what scientifically proven means

By: Hatezimmerman

Hatezimmerman — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:00:00 +0000

In reply to Drwtexas. Sorry buddy two experts ruled out zimmerman. Hes a murderer and all white america going to feel like assholes backing this poor of an excuse wannabe cop ass...

By: Evanlives

Evanlives — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 18:38:00 +0000

In reply to Drwtexas. It has already been scientifically proven by 2 different forensic voice analyzers that the cries for help were definitely not Zimmerman. Look it up hotshot. Boom, smoke on that.

By: Drwtexas

Drwtexas — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:56:00 +0000

It has already been established by eye witness the voice crying for help came from Zimmerman.

By: brynaleh

brynaleh — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:56:00 +0000

Interesting stuff. I’m also not so sure about the comparison between fingerprints and “voiceprints”, however. It doesn’t seem like the two could be compared for some of the reasons David mentions. Thanks for covering this heart-wrenching recent event, though.

By: David

David — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:29:00 +0000

The author throughout states ‘facts’, suppositions, conclusions, etc. without any backup from experts, other sources, her credentials, or any corroborative or supporting information. I do not agree that the comparison of [the point technique] of fingerprinting is valid (nor would most experts, I believe, as I know something on the matter), there are substantial issues missed (e.g., how phones select what sounds to transmit; how cell systems encode voices in a lossy manner and the impact of compression on any comparison with other sources…and how to account for it), not to mention the conclusion [such as it is]. In general this site would benefit substantially from some rigorous editorial support and review.

This is the sort of reporting I see through most of the articles here. I get that this site is a labor of love, but don’t expect me to come to the site if I can get a better review of the same topic elsewhere from someone who cares enough about my time to do good research and be deliberate in their judgement.

Think outside yourselves. Good luck.