Based on the many analyses carried out, the undersigned had to conclude that, while there is evidence to suggest that Mr. Martin made the first two calls/cries (Nos. 1 and 8) and that Mr. Zimmerman made those identified as 14 and 16, none of these conclusions reached the criterion for a match. Neither speaker could be identified as being responsible for the others.

...While the evidence suggests that Mr. Martin produced the first two utterances and Mr. Zimmerman made the last two, the confidence level for these relationships is not very robust.

The report also states that the analysis method used, "aural-percerptual" is "somewhat subjective" and subject to errors. Translation: It's not science.

There's also this:

Data for Mr. Martin. The data for Mr. Martin are similar in extent but different in pattern. Of course, the judgments here are even more difficult to make as they were drawn from a telephone call and, unlike those for Mr. Zimmerman, no reenactment samples were available. In judging Figures 4 and 5 (based also on two separate analyses), it can be noted I) that no judgments were possible for call No. 11 , and data for calls No. 13, 14, and 16 quite clearly demonstrate that he did not make them. (my emphasis.)

The report seems worthless. But even if one accepts it, since Martin is excluded as the person screaming in three of the last four screams the logical conclusion is he wasn't the one crying out for help. The inference I take from this is that Martin may have yelled as he started hitting Zimmerman (the first two cries) but Zimmerman was the one crying out in the rest of the screams, which fits with him being punched in the nose and having his head slammed into the ground.

The second report is so absurd I'm wondering if it wasn't a joke. Parts of it are laugh-out-loud funny.

For example, approximately one second after the start of CALL3, Mr. Zimmerman makes a seemingly religious proclamation, "These shall be." His speech is characterized by the low pitch and exaggerated pitch contour reminiscent of an evangelical preacher or carnival barker.

The statement is challenging for the untrained listener to detect as it occurs simultaneously with Trayvon Martin's loud, high-pitched,
distressed, and tremulous "I'm begging you." and the 911 Dispatcher's "Nine-one-one." Many of Mr. Zimmerman's "side-bar" utterances are subject to such multiple-talker masking effects and to low signal levels.

Where did Reich come from? Turns out, the Washington Post retained him to analyze the call back in 2012 (See, "In Martin case, 45 seconds of debate" The Washington Post May 20, 2012 Sunday.)

In an effort to find out what might be discerned from the crucial 911 call, The Washington Post retained Reich, 67, a former University of Washington professor with a doctorate in speech science who has worked for prosecutors and defense attorneys in hundreds of criminal and civil cases over a period of more than 35 years.

Where many people have heard only vague yells on the recording, Reich said that he has found language. Reich also identified two distinct male voices outside, in the background of the recording - one younger, one older - that he concludes are those of Martin, 17, and Zimmerman, 28.

To familiarize himself with Zimmerman's voice, Reich also listened many times to a recorded call that Zimmerman placed to police minutes earlier that night and that has established much of what is known about the moments leading up to those last 45 seconds:

I could not find a single state or federal court opinion mentioning Alan Reich on Lexis. I did find a few news articles -- all very old. In one, his testimony was excluded in a criminal trial as not passing the Frye test. (It was admitted in a later civil trial involving the defendant.) In another, his testimony was excluded for untimely notice under discovery rules.

Some courts allow this stuff, others don't, whether under Frye, Daubert or a relevancy test. Most telling is the number of courts that have rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a defense lawyer's failure to retain a voice identification expert. The opinions recount the techniques and say they are not science and would likely not have been admissible even if the lawyer did retain an expert. Examples: United States v. Gomez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48790, 28-30 (S.D. Tex. May 1, 2011); United States v. Drones, 218 F.3d 496, 503 (5th Cir. 2000.) From Drones:

Voice analysis is not an exact science. To date, the Fifth Circuit has not approved the admission of voice identification expert testimony. See United States v. Angleton, 269 F.Supp.2d 892, (S.D. Tex. 2003) (collecting authorities). The state of the law concerning the admissibility of voice analysis is ambiguous.

A relatively recent case excluding it: State v. Cooke, 914 A.2d 1078, 1095-1096 (Del. Super. Ct. 2007):

FBI examiner, Hirotaka Nakasone, compared three different telephone calls from an unknown or questioned voice, one probably being a 911 call made to the Newark Police (which Cooke's girlfriend has said was made by him) to various known samples of Cooke's voice. The findings he made are: An aural examination of specimen K2 revealed that it was recorded using a different recording channel and it is of poor recording quality. Therefore, no comparisons were conducted using specimen K2.

An aural examination of specimen K3, K4, K5, and K6 revealed that they are not verbatim voice samples of the telephone calls on specimen Q1. Therefore, no comparisons were conducted using specimens K3, K4, K5, or K6.

Speaker identification by the spectrographic method requires that the same words and phrases be compared between the unknown and known speakers. Therefore, voice exemplars should contain the same wording and recording channel used by the unknown speaker.

Voice identification by the spectrographic method is not considered a positive means of speaker identification and the results of such examinations are furnished for investigative guidance only.

The analysis of that objection differs from the other discussion of the scientific or technical evidence. First, based on representations made by the State at the November 1st office conference, this is a newer science. Second, it is a less reliable means of comparison. The quoted portions of the report offer partial confirmation, although like circumstances where fingerprints may not be left, circumstances exist for why voice comparisons cannot be made.

The Court believes Cooke's relevance and reliability objections based on D.R.E. 702 and 401 are well taken as to this evidence.

Nakasone was unable to make any voice comparisons. That may have been due, in part, to the poor quality or inadequacies of the recordings given to him. Coupled with that was the State's refreshingly candid statement at the office conference about the status of this developing science. All of this means even evidence of even seeking voice comparison or identification is inadmissable in this trial. The Court is not ruling on voice identification evidence beyond this trial.

The jurors can listen to the tape and decide for themselves if it was Zimmerman on the tape. Lay witnesses who are familiar with Zimmerman and Martin's voice can probably give their opinion. The first state report is equivocal and a guesstimate. The second is a joke. The court should exclude these expert reports.