Forensic speechreading

Last updated

Forensic speechreading (or forensic lipreading) is the use of speechreading for information or evidential purposes. Forensic speechreading can be considered a branch of forensic linguistics. In contrast to speaker recognition which is often the focus of voice analysis from an audio record, forensic speechreading usually aims to establish the content of speech, since the identity of the talker is usually apparent. Often, it involves the production of a transcript of lipread video-records of talk that lack a usable audiotrack, for example CCTV material. Occasionally, 'live' lipreading is involved, for example in the Casey Anthony case. [1] Forensic speechreaders are usually deaf or from deaf families (CODA), and use speechreading in their daily lives to a greater extent than people with normal hearing outside the deaf community. Some speechreading tests suggest deaf people can be better lipreaders than most hearing people. [2]

Contents

Speechreading expertise

No tests of speechreading have yet been developed in a forensic context: that is, to benchmark individual skills in speechreading from a video record, including production of a reliable transcript. [3] For many years, UK agencies made extensive use of one particular speechreader, whose reports are now not to be used for evidential purposes. [4] Several speechreaders and deaf professionals currently offer these services. Expert speechreaders may be able to advise on various issues, including whether a videorecord is or is not speechreadable, and the accent and language used by a talker. [5] Commissioning agents need to be aware of issues inherent in the unreliability of speechreading, and be prepared to treat such advice with caution. [6]

The law

In the UK, a landmark case and appeal (R. v Luttrell et al., 2004) established the admissibility of lipreading evidence. [7] However, the appeal court also required that the judge should issue a special warning as to its risks and limitations. [8]

While lipread speech can carry useful speech information, it is inherently less accurate than (clearly) heard speech because many distinctive features of speech are produced by actions of the tongue within the oral cavity and are not visible. [9] [10] This is a limitation imposed by speech itself, not the expertise of the speechreader. It is the main reason why the accuracy of a speechreader working on a purely visual record cannot be considered wholly reliable, however skilled they may be and irrespective of hearing status. [10] The type of evidence and the utility of such evidence varies from case to case.

In the US, there is debate concerning the admissibility of speechreading evidence and its status, [11] especially in relation to variations in state and federal evidential procedures, and with respect to the privacy implications of the Fourth Amendment to the US constitution. [12]

Three UK cases involving speechreading evidence

Related Research Articles

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tadoma</span>

Tadoma is a method of communication utilized by deafblind individuals, in which the listener places their little finger on the speaker's lips and their fingers along the jawline. The middle three fingers often fall along the speaker's cheeks with the little finger picking up the vibrations of the speaker's throat. It is sometimes referred to as tactile lipreading, as the listener feels the movement of the lips, the vibrations of the vocal cords, expansion of the cheeks and the warm air produced by nasal phonemes such as 'N' and 'M'. Hand positioning can vary, and it is a sometimes also used by hard-of-hearing people to supplement their remaining hearing.

Lip reading, also known as speechreading, is a technique of understanding speech by visually interpreting the movements of the lips, face and tongue when normal sound is not available. It relies also on information provided by the context, knowledge of the language, and any residual hearing. Although lip reading is used most extensively by deaf and hard-of-hearing people, most people with normal hearing process some speech information from sight of the moving mouth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forensic linguistics</span> Application of linguistics to forensics

Forensic linguistics, legal linguistics, or language and the law, is the application of linguistic knowledge, methods, and insights to the forensic context of law, language, crime investigation, trial, and judicial procedure. It is a branch of applied linguistics.

Cued speech is a visual system of communication used with and among deaf or hard-of-hearing people. It is a phonemic-based system which makes traditionally spoken languages accessible by using a small number of handshapes, known as cues, in different locations near the mouth to convey spoken language in a visual format. The National Cued Speech Association defines cued speech as "a visual mode of communication that uses hand shapes and placements in combination with the mouth movements and speech to make the phonemes of spoken language look different from each other." It adds information about the phonology of the word that is not visible on the lips. This allows people with hearing or language difficulties to visually access the fundamental properties of language. It is now used with people with a variety of language, speech, communication, and learning needs. It is not a sign language such as American Sign Language (ASL), which is a separate language from English. Cued speech is considered a communication modality but can be used as a strategy to support auditory rehabilitation, speech articulation, and literacy development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hearing (law)</span> Court proceeding

In law, a hearing is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer, such as a government agency or a legislative committee.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

Douglas Hewson Christie, Jr. was a Canadian lawyer and political activist based in Victoria, British Columbia, who was known nationally for his defence of clients such as Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel, former Nazi prison guard Michael Seifert and neo-Nazi Paul Fromm among others.

Manually coded languages (MCLs) are a family of gestural communication methods which include gestural spelling as well as constructed languages which directly interpolate the grammar and syntax of oral languages in a gestural-visual form—that is, signed versions of oral languages. Unlike the sign languages that have evolved naturally in deaf communities, these manual codes are the conscious invention of deaf and hearing educators, and as such lack the distinct spatial structures present in native deaf sign languages. MCLs mostly follow the grammar of the oral language—or, more precisely, of the written form of the oral language that they interpolate. They have been mainly used in deaf education in an effort to "represent English on the hands" and by sign language interpreters in K-12 schools, although they have had some influence on deaf sign languages where their implementation was widespread.

The Judicial College, formerly the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), established in 1979, is the organisation responsible for training judges in county, the Crown, and higher courts in England and Wales and tribunal judges in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This includes the training of magistrates and the chairmen and members of tribunals. The current chairman is Lady Justice Anne Rafferty, DBE. The name changed from Judicial Studies Board to Judicial College on 1 April 2011.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the right of a criminal defendant to present evidence that a third party instead committed the crime. The Court vacated the rape and murder conviction in South Carolina of a man who had been denied the opportunity to present evidence of a third party's guilt, because the trial court believed the prosecutor's forensic evidence was too strong for the defendant's evidence to raise an inference of innocence. The Court ruled unanimously that this exclusion violated the right of a defendant to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense, because the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.

Arlene Fraser was a 33-year-old woman from Elgin in Moray, Scotland, who vanished from her home on 28 April 1998 after her two children went to school. No trace of her was ever found, but her husband was convicted of her murder, upheld on appeal.

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society in this Texas death penalty case. The American Psychiatric Association submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data.

Forensic entomology deals with the collection of arthropodic evidence and its application, and through a series of tests and previously set of rules, general admissibility of said evidence is determined. Forensic entomology may come into play in a variety of legal cases, including crime scene investigation, abuse and neglect cases, accidents, insect infestation, and food contamination.

A revoicer provides communication assistance by carefully listening to the speech patterns uttered by an individual with a speech disability, using lipreading (speechreading) and attention to other cues if necessary for full understanding of the utterances, and then repeats the same words in a manner that is more clear and understandable to the listener. Revoicers generally have excellent skills in auditory phonetic/phonemic pattern recognition, similar to those utilized by a court reporter or stenographer, to identify the sounds of speech of the speaker.

The role of expert witnesses in English law is to give explanations of difficult or technical topics in civil and criminal trials, to assist the fact finding process. The extent to which authorities have been allowed to testify, and on what topics, has been debated, and to this end a variety of criteria have evolved throughout English case law.

<i>R v Terry</i>

R v John Terry was a 2012 English criminal law case in which the Chelsea and England defender John Terry was found not guilty of racially abusing the Queens Park Rangers defender Anton Ferdinand in a football match between Chelsea and Queens Park Rangers on 23 October 2011. The prosecution, acquittal and civil inquiry and penalty by the Football Association received broad media coverage. The taint of bringing race into an retortive insult short of full, criminal law-defined racial abuse had repercussions in football. Terry lost the captaincy of the England national team which he retired from and England coach Fabio Capello quit as manager when the Football Association made its reprimand.

<i>The Public Prosecution Service v William Elliott, Robert McKee</i>

The Public Prosecution Service v William Elliott and Robert McKee [2013] UKSC 32 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning admissibility of electronic evidence obtained from an electronic fingerprint reader unit that had not been approved by the Secretary of State as required by Article 61(8)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989.

Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., et al. is a decision by the U.S. district court for the District of Colorado from May 1, 1996. It is considered a landmark decision in terms of expert witness court testimony in questions of electronic evidence and digital forensics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quentin Summerfield</span> British psychologist

Quentin Summerfield is a British psychologist, specialising in hearing. He joined the Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research in 1977 and served as its deputy director from 1993 to 2004, before moving on to a chair in psychology at The University of York. He served as head of the Psychology department from 2011 to 2017 and retired in 2018, becoming an emeritus professor. From 2013 to 2018, he was a member of the University of York's Finance & Policy Committee. From 2015 to 2018, he was a member of York University's governing body, the Council.

References

  1. ↑ "Did Casey Anthony Contradict Her Own Defense by Mouthing Words". ABC News. July 5, 2011. Retrieved October 5, 2012.
  2. ↑ Auer, Edward T.; Bernstein, Lynne E. (2007). "Enhanced Visual Speech Perception in Individuals with Early-Onset Hearing Impairment". Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 50 (5): 1157–65. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/080). PMID   17905902.
  3. ↑ Campbell, Ruth; Mohammed, Tara-Jane Ellis (2010). "Speechreading for information gathering: a survey of scientific sources". Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre.
  4. ↑ "CPS drops So Solid expert witness". BBC News. 2005-06-27. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  5. ↑ "FAQ". Lip Reading Translation. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  6. ↑ Campbell, Ruth (2010). "Guidance for organizations planning to use lipreading for information gathering". Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre. Retrieved November 4, 2012.
  7. ↑ original case notes; http://lexisweb.co.uk/cases/2004/may/r-v-luttrell-and-others-r-v-dawson-and-another: appeal court decision; http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/1344.html&query=luttrell&method=boolean
  8. ↑ updated ruling in relation to expert witness evidence; Mary Luckham 'Forensic lipreading',http://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/articles-pdfs/forensic-lip-reading.pdf
  9. ↑ Breeuwer, M; Plomp, R (1986). "Speechreading supplemented with auditorily presented speech parameters". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 79 (2): 481–99. Bibcode:1986ASAJ...79..481B. doi:10.1121/1.393536. PMID   3950202. S2CID   43878778.
  10. 1 2 Auer, Edward T. (2010). "Investigating Speechreading and Deafness". Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 21 (3): 163–8. doi:10.3766/jaaa.21.3.4. PMC   3715375 . PMID   20211120.
  11. ↑ "e-wire article: Taking experts out of the court". Jspubs.com. 2004-07-15. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  12. ↑ CM (June 4, 2011). "Read My Lips, No Lip Reading Testimony?: Court Of Appeals Of Indiana Opinion Poses Question About Lip Read Statements". EvidenceProf Blog. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  13. ↑ "Nine jailed over £11m stolen goods". BBC News. 2003-02-27. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  14. ↑ "Luttrell & Ors, R v [2004] EWCA Crim 1344 (28 May 2004)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  15. ↑ "Lip reader saw Fraser's incriminating conversations". 2 February 2003. Retrieved 27 January 2018– via www.telegraph.co.uk.
  16. ↑ "Press Office - Frontline Scotland reveals new evidence in Arlene Fraser murder case". BBC. 2005-10-19. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  17. ↑ "John Terry's racist slur uncensored in slow motion". YouTube. 2011-12-02. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  18. ↑ "Racist and Religious Crime: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service". Cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 2012-10-15.
  19. ↑ The Guardian 12 July 2012
  20. 1 2 3 "R -v- John Terry judgement". www.judiciary.gov.uk. 13 July 2012.
  21. ↑ "Terry not guilty of racist abuse". BBC. 13 July 2012.
  22. ↑ The Football Association and John Terry
  23. ↑ The Football Association and John Terry (1.5)
  24. ↑ "John Terry defence 'improbable, implausible and contrived'". BBC. 5 October 2012.
  25. ↑ "John Terry judgment: Main findings of the FA's regulatory commission". the Guardian. 5 October 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.