Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

raccoon

(31,118 posts) Sat Jul 6, 2013, 07:37 PM Jul 2013

0

Why can't they do a voiceprint of the screaming (Zimmerman trial) to determine

who was doing the screaming?

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why can't they do a voiceprint of the screaming (Zimmerman trial) to determine (Original Post) raccoon Jul 2013 OP

They tried. The results came back inconclusive. Gravitycollapse Jul 2013 #1

And since the results came back inconclusive the judge... Tx4obama Jul 2013 #2

Which is sound reasoning on the judges part. Gravitycollapse Jul 2013 #3

Pun intended? WovenGems Jul 2013 #4

... Gravitycollapse Jul 2013 #6

Are you sure about that? Lurks Often Jul 2013 #5

Well... actually the only thing that I'm sure about it ... Tx4obama Jul 2013 #8

Ok, I thought I had missed something. Thanks n/t Lurks Often Jul 2013 #9

Quality of the recording Mojo Electro Jul 2013 #7

how many kilobits of data was the cell phone transmitting... quadrature Jul 2013 #10

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)

1. They tried. The results came back inconclusive.

Reply to raccoon (Original post)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 07:39 PM

Jul 2013

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)

2. And since the results came back inconclusive the judge...

Reply to Gravitycollapse (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 07:41 PM

Jul 2013

... ruled in a private hearing that the voice experts can't testify in court.

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)

3. Which is sound reasoning on the judges part.

Reply to Tx4obama (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 07:42 PM

Jul 2013

WovenGems

(776 posts)

4. Pun intended?

Reply to Gravitycollapse (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 07:47 PM

Jul 2013

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)

6. ...

Reply to WovenGems (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 07:52 PM

Jul 2013

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

5. Are you sure about that?

Reply to Tx4obama (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 07:50 PM

Jul 2013

I thought the prosecution's audio/voice experts were not allowed to testify because the method in which they analyzed the 3 second clip was new and/or unproven and thus not considered sufficiently reliable or accurate enough.

I am fairly certain that the FBI voice expert testified during the trial and was listed as a prosecution witness. Whether the other two expert witnesses that the defense used in the pre-trial motions testify remains to be seen.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)

8. Well... actually the only thing that I'm sure about it ...

Reply to Lurks Often (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:48 PM

Jul 2013

... that I heard on TV that there was a hearing and that the judged ruled that some 'voice experts' would not be allowed to testify.

Which ones I don't know.

For what exact reason I don't know.

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

9. Ok, I thought I had missed something. Thanks n/t

Reply to Tx4obama (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:58 PM

Jul 2013

Mojo Electro

(362 posts)

7. Quality of the recording

Reply to raccoon (Original post)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:10 PM

Jul 2013

is not good enough.

quadrature

(2,049 posts)

10. how many kilobits of data was the cell phone transmitting...

Reply to raccoon (Original post)

Sat Jul 6, 2013, 08:59 PM

Jul 2013

at the time?
what was the error rate?
what codec was used?

(otherwise, I am not inclined to
trust the opinion of experts)

Reply to this discussion

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why can't they do a voice...