Yawkaw,
You make a good point, once again, however, Voice Analysis results are not admissable in court, just as results to Polygraphs or Truth Verification Tests are not admissable. But, and this is a BIG BUT (trust me, I've seen a few big butts in my life, hehehe) the testimony of a credible EXPERT WITNESS that conducted the Voice Analysis or Polygraph , may be admissable instead of the actual results. The problem is getting the judge to accept the testimony of the witness, and even then, the testimony is usually not as potent or damaging as the actual test results themselves. On the contrary, DNA evidence is admissable in every court proceeding, so long as it is necessary to prove a crime actually occured by a particular defendant. I only bring up DNA, as I figure someone is sure to mention it somewhere in the near future, as it relates to this case. FUTURE POST "Well, what if they take DNA samples from all the phones in Georgia and determine that this girl actually used the phone at or around the same time this script was called in to the pharmacy in question?" I know that's a little extreme, but this has gone a little too far, even for speculation. Don't get me wrong though, this is a lot of fun for me to discuss as I am fairly knowledgable in Criminal Law, too bad it's to the detriment of another person. As mentioned here before, there are so many variables, but unfortunately, I don't think we will hear the exciting conclusion to this one, unless it ends up in the news, like all the other mistakes people have made with regards to Narcotics. But I'm having a blast playing the devil's advocate on this one. Keep it the good work boys and girls.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: calling in fakes
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
Re: calling in fakes
Re: calling in fakes
