This is what I found on another forensic audio expert’s site:
http://trueaudioforensics.blogspot.com/
“The following are the standards accepted nationally by all professional organizations involved with voice identification, including the FBI, the Audio Engineering Society, the International Association for Identification, and the American Board of Recorded Evidence:
IDENTIFICATION: At least 90% of all comparable words must be very similar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than twenty (20) matching words. The voice samples must not be more than six (6) years apart.
PROBABLE IDENTIFICATION: At least 80% of the comparable words must be very similar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than fifteen (15) matching words.
POSSIBLE IDENTIFICATION: At least 80% of comparable words must be very similar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than ten (10) matching words.
INCONCLUSIVE: Falls below either the Possible Identification or Possible Elimination confidence levels and/or the examiner does not believe a meaningful decision is obtainable due to various limiting factors.
POSSIBLE ELIMINATION: At least 80% of comparable words must be very dissimilar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than ten (10) words that do not match.
PROBABLE ELIMINATION: At least 80% of the comparable words must be dissimilar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than fifteen (15) words that do not match.
ELIMINATION: At least 90% of the comparable words must be very dissimilar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than twenty (20) words that do not match.”
If these are the criteria, then 48% would be inconclusive. It seems odd that Tom Owen would state an opinion that it was Zimmerman’s voice.
There seems to be an awful lot of disinformation out there. I don’t know why folks can’t wait until the Grand Jury does its work. It is so disgusting how this young man’s tragic death is being used by political leeches like Sharpton.
If those are the criteria, the expert should say there is not enough evidence to support the test protocol. In other words, I am unable to form an opinion on the matter, one way or the other.
You might be saying the same thing by saying the result is inconclusive, but I think my phrasing is less ambiguous, and does represent an appropriate answer by an expert who know how to couch expert testimony.