[Jayelles]

This is a copy of a post of mine from my own forum. It summarieses my reasons for being critical of Dave's analysis. Dave, jameson & co would have people believe that I am criticl of his analysis because it suggests Burke's voice is not on the tape. People need only read this to see that is not the case:-

I tend not to place much weight on listening to the finer details of the 911 tape on a home pc for several reasons - namely, that home pc speakers are not usually great quality and that the quality of an audio varies depending on the specification of a computer too.

However, I have just listened once more to the unadulterated 911 tape, through a headset and with the volume as high as I could bear it. It is clear that there is a mechanical, rhythmic sound which is more audible during periods of silence (for semantic purposes, I will define silence as no one speaking or tapping on a keyboard).

This rhythmic mechanical sound is constant during each period of silence. I can ALSO hear additional background noise which I believe to be the portion of "forensic interest" and it is not the same as the constant, rhythmic sound that is heard in the background.

Now, many of you will be aware of my criticism of Dave (from jameson's) "enhancement" of the 911 tape. Dave presents himself as an expert in many areas - forensic audio analysis and DNA are just two of his many areas of "expertise". However, I do not criticise Dave without just cause and reason. Here are some of my reasons for distrusting his analysis of the 911 tape:-

1) Dave did not use specialised equipment for hs analysis, instead he used his own (rather dated) home pc, a 'lite' version of some audio software and a little program which he wrote himself.

2) Dave does not offer any credentials for his program, in particular he does not explain how he validated the results from his program. He has not offered examples of how he compared the results of his program with the results of other similar software.

3) Dave does not explain if and how he performed spectrographical analysis of the 911 tape. Spectrography is a crucial part of forensic audio analysis. When asked about how he had done this, Dave's response was that the person asking the question clearly did not know what they were talking about. If Dave knew exactly who HAD asked the question, he would be extremely embarrassed.

4) Forensic audio analysis is governed by standards laid down by the American Audio Engineering Society. Dave does not explain how or even if he complied with these standards.

5) Before Dave even started his analysis, jameson warned her members that this was going to be a B O R G test - that if anyone could hear voices at the end of the tape, then it meant they were B O R G to the bone. This hardly provided an unbiased starting point for any research done by her loyal members.

6) Dave promoted his "trained ear" as a crucial tool in his research.

Clearly, as a defence, Dave's analysis would be laughed out of court.

On listening to Dave's "enhanced" portions of the tape, it was clear that they too sounded just like amplified versions of the rhythmic, mechanical background sound which is audible without enhancement anyway. I am now beginning to doubt that Dave has even "enhanced" the correct portions of the tape. This could come back to the absence of spectrographical analysis in his testing. Spectrographical anaylsis to a forensic tape analyst is a bit like geo-physical analysis to an archaeologist - it pinpoints "where to dig". A spectrograph can distinguish between voice and non-voice sounds.

If Dave did not do any spectrographical analysis (this IS an expensive and specialised piece of equipment), then how did he know "where to dig"? I seriously doubt that even the best trained ear could compete with a spectrograph.

Finally, it was Aerospace who performed the enhancement which the BPD used in their investigation. Aerospace are not at liberty to discuss their enhancement but they do stand by their work:-

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...e&pagenumber=1

It is widely known that Aerospace did the 911 enhancement which suggested that Burke's voice was on the tape, yet when asked by Larry King what made the police think Burke's voice WAS on the tape, Lin Wood did not mention Aerospace, but instead, chose to suggest that the police had made it up!

That speaks volumes for Lin Wood's integrity - wouldn't you agree?