- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I don't know much about voice recognition. Can you match screams to a regular speaking voice? Not arguing, just don't know.
I'm now pretty skeptical in general of forensic evidence. I used to think it was all scientific, but some things I've since read tell me that a lot of it is voodoo. There was a guy in Texas who was convicted and executed from forensic arson testimony, then I found out about arson "experts" and found out that there are no standards or even solidly accepted principles.
I've read a bit about carpet fiber analysis as well, and apparently that's not as exact as we've been led to believe.
Again, voice recognition may be pure provable science, I just don't know anything about it.
As to those who say we'll never know what happened, I think we just might. I think when everything comes out we'll have a good idea. As political as this thing is, I think if they had something solid they would have arrested the guy. The state of Florida would like nothing more than to convict this guy, I'd think.
I also think that no matter what happens, Zimmerman is going to face a federal prosecution for civil rights violations. If nothing else they can use it as a stage to attack concealed carry and self defense laws.
Great point! My conclusion would be that the state and/or feds generally have comparatively unlimited funds for the services of 'expert witnesses' where most of us would not, but would rather have a slam-dunk when we and/or the jury simply give up at the appearance of one of these creatures pontificating as if he were an eyewitness rather than as a reader of tea leaves. It just makes life so much easier. After all, the prosecution is in the business of having people convicted and chalking up a score, not in the business of finding truth. Capitulation and/or BSing the jury into accepting such things as holy writ makes the process so much simpler.