Skip to main content

View Diary: Yet Another Ruling against Trayvon -- Audio Experts excluded from Trial (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  To be fair . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, bobatkinson

    While all the pundit analysis seems to indicate that this ruling hurts the prosecution, it's also true that Zimmerman's best defense would be to try to prove that it was his voice on the 911 recording.  

    Zimmerman's team doesn't have much else, if anything, to back up his any of his claims, and if this audio evidence were still admissible, it's a certainty that the defense's attorneys could find some hack to say that it was George's voice.

    The way it stands, imho it's rather a wash.

    Another beautiful day in Surveillance Nation.

    by thenekkidtruth on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:57:39 AM PDT

    •  I thought the defense had their own expert voice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thenekkidtruth

      analyst? Is theirs allowed to testify?

      •  The judge, I believe, has ruled voice analysis (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, happymisanthropy

        on both sides inadmissible, as I understand it.

        Open to correction on this, because legal details aren't my thing, but as I read it, she isn't allowing any voice analysis at all - only the prima facie content information on the 911 recording itself.

        Another beautiful day in Surveillance Nation.

        by thenekkidtruth on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:08:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks..that's a good thing then, the jury can (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thenekkidtruth

          hear the 911 recordings and make their own decision. I think both family members will claim that it's their person screaming. The jury will have to use other forensic evidence(other than who was screaming) to help them reach a decision.

          •  Yuh, I see things the same way (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doroma

            A hack witness produced by the defense might sow reasonable doubt, and that's been dispensed with.

            Now it's down to the jury analyzing the preponderance of the evidence, which, I believe, favors the prosecution.

            Another beautiful day in Surveillance Nation.

            by thenekkidtruth on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:18:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Defense could sow doubt with the FBI expert (0+ / 0-)

              saying that current technology does not have the ability to determine if the voices were TM or GZ.  Therefore human witnesses cannot be relied upon either.  

              High doubt as to the facts means the prosecution does not prove its case.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:57:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  The defense's experts, including the FBI (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pi Li, VClib

        expert, testified that,

        1.  No scientifically tested method can determine, from a scream, the identify of the speaker.    

        2.  The audio clips were too short, under generally accepted scientific methods, to be able to validly conclude who the speaker was, and the method of the excluded expert (looping one short audio clip over and over) was not a tested method that was found to be scientifically valid.

        What the jury will hear is the audio.  Perhaps they will also hear that based on the limited audio clip, experts cannot conclude, with scientific certainty, who the speaker is.  

        •  my question is does the defense have a expert (0+ / 0-)

          voice analyst testifying at the trial? The prosecution one won't testify...will the defense one testify?. That's what I asked and I have been answered already. Thanks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site