96% LIKELYforensic voice comparison, the greeting versus Detective Dore
The recorded Provo Police phone greeting for this case; Bricks & Minifigs’ own Episode 3, the source of Detective Dore’s recorded voice; and the search warrant she swore.
Call the Provo Police Department about the Bricks & Minifigs case and the line plays a message recorded for this case alone: callers are told that until the matter has been adjudicated the department cannot discuss an active case, and are sent to an online complaint form. On a forensic comparison of the voices, the woman who reads that greeting is, at a probability on the order of 96 percent, the same speaker as Detective Medina Dore, the detective who swore the secret warrant for the journalist’s Google account.
A caller who reaches the department in reference to the case hears a message written for it: “If you are calling in reference to the Bricks and Minifigs issue, until this matter has been adjudicated we are unable to discuss an active case. You can register your complaint by going to provo.gov forward slash police feedback.” It is not the department’s general greeting. It names one civilian dispute and turns callers away from it.
The same recording that declines to discuss the case invites a complaint about it: the voice sends callers to an address it reads aloud as “provo.gov forward slash police feedback.” Checked on July 10, 2026, that address, provo.gov/policefeedback, returned Provo’s own “Page Not Found,” while the city’s working Citizen Feedback form sat at a separate address the recording does not read out. Checked again on July 11, 2026, the address forwards: it now lands on that form. An earlier version of this entry, written while the address did not resolve, reported the “Page Not Found” result alone.
The questioned recording is the greeting itself. The knowns are Detective Dore’s voice as it appears on the police bodycam in the company’s own Episode 3, where she is heard working the case. Play them and compare.
Forensic voice comparison asks a narrow question: is the speaker on one recording the same person as the speaker on another, scored against how a range of other speakers compare. Measured this way, the greeting matches Detective Dore’s recorded voice more closely than it matches any of the nineteen other women recorded in the case, the dispatcher, the front desk, the complainant, and bystanders captured on the same bodycam. Every one of them scores below 0.29 against her; the greeting scores 0.53. It also matches her in two separate recordings of her voice, which match each other. Four independent voice-identification systems, including ones built for telephone-quality audio, rank her as the greeting’s closest match; the systems that cannot reliably tell women’s voices apart on a phone line were set aside.
A comparison like this returns a probability, not a certainty. From a neutral starting assumption the greeting is Detective Dore on the order of 96 percent; from a deliberately skeptical starting point it is still about 88 percent. The greeting is far more consistent with her than with any other woman tested, and nothing in the comparison points to anyone else. The recording is also a genuine, single, continuous human recording, not a synthetic or edited clip. What it is not is a certified examiner’s report.
The connection to the record is plain. The detective who swore the warrant and the voice that now answers the public about the same case are, on this comparison, one person.
The department’s handling of this case is itself contested. The felony extortion theory that opened the journalist’s Google account was never charged, and the case that followed is two misdemeanors, disorderly conduct and criminal trespass. A recorded line that declines to discuss the same case, while inviting a complaint about it, belongs to that record.
The fair counterpoint. Recorded phone greetings are often made by clerical or records staff, not by the case investigator, so the ordinary expectation is that someone other than the detective voiced this one. The comparison tested the other women who appear in the case and none matched, but it cannot exclude a Provo Police employee who does not appear in the record. The greeting recording carries no independent chain of custody, and voice comparison at telephone quality is probative, not conclusive: a certified examiner working from the department’s own master recording could sharpen it or unsettle it. Detective Dore is presumed innocent of any wrongdoing. Recording a department greeting is not misconduct, and this entry alleges none; it reports whose voice, to a graded degree of confidence, is on the line.
The threads this connects to: the secret warrant the same detective swore on a charge that was never filed; The takedown for the pattern of turning the reporting into a police matter; and the cast for every named person and entity with its grade.
Sources: the recorded Provo Police phone greeting for this case (hosted here), a message obtainable by any caller; Bricks & Minifigs’ own published Episode 3, the source of Detective Dore’s bodycam voice (hosted excerpts at 15:30 and 34:03); and the Provo Police Search Warrant and Affidavit No. 3327741, sworn by Detective Medina Dore. The comparison is a forensic speaker comparison under the likelihood-ratio framework used in voice-identification casework, run across four independent speaker-embedding systems and an acoustic-phonetic analysis, against a background population that includes the other women recorded in the case and speakers from a standard reference corpus; it is asserted by the forensic comparison at a probability on the order of 96 percent from a neutral prior, about 88 percent from a skeptical one, not a certified identification.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; the criminal charges referenced are unadjudicated and every defendant is presumed innocent. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map · The law · Bodycam