Replies

The judge specifically named the prosecution experts as non-admissible. She did NOT exclude the defense experts who can now be used as expert testimony to refute anyone who claims to be able to identify Martin as the ‘screamer’.

Those defense experts could not be used to refute a parent or friend of Martin's who says "I am sure that is him." Their testimony was purely on the issue of whether there is any generally accepted forensic method for comparing the screaming voice on the recording to samples of Zimmerman or Martin. The judge accepted that the prosecution's "experts" were cranks. While the defense theoretically could call their experts, they really no longer have anything about which to testify.

There are several problems the prosecution would have if they were to put Martin's parents on the stand, though:

Martin's father initially told police he could not identify his son's voice on the recording, later decided he could. That would be brought out by defense, and makes his testimony less than convincing.
Martin's mother says she can identify her son's voice yelling, but when played a recording from her son's cell phone of a fight, she could not identify whether or not the narrator of the video was her son. The prosecution does not want that video in front of the jury, but if they present the mother as an expert on identifying her son's voice, it's hard to see how they could keep it out.
Zimmerman's father has said he recognizes the screaming voice as his son. He said/she said. Stalemate.

Excellent, yes Georges father said first and very naturally that it was his sons voice.

Only after, much later did the mother of Trayvon Martin say that it was her son.

On that awful CNN HLN they speak as if it was the other way around

that may come down to ‘hear say’ evidence which is not admissible in any case. Any testimony stating that they heard someone saying something is NOT admissible. Whether or not that also relates to someone saying that the someone they heard being admissible remains to be seen.

Since the testimony presented by the defense experts rules out any scientific means of determining who was screaming that might also render someone thinking they heard ‘someone’ screaming not being allowed because there is no means of actually knowing exactly who they thought they heard screaming.

The defense experts testimony that it was impossible to make any accurate determination because of not only length but also because of the distance and cell phone modifying the actual sounds and the sound of a persons voice while screaming is different than their normal voice might possibly be construed as rendering any audio testimony other than actual direct encounter which includes seeing the person talking as well as hearing them talking being rejected.