You know what I find funny about this? They have a guy that actually SAW the two men while one was screaming. He clearly and strongly believed that the guy on the bottom was screaming. Then we get an “audio expert” that, listening to the background from a cell phone of a tussle between two people who he had never heard, can discern that it was the other guy screaming. And this is admissable in court?!
I suppose it is. It doesn’t mean the jury has to take it seriously. ;-)
I am a technical person. Nakasone can’t speak English and is talking way over the jury’s head. He’s putting me to sleep. The jury has to be saying WTF.
You can get almost anyone to say almost anything if you bribe, or in some cases threaten, them enough. Most of the people that have heard about this case (and who hasn’t?) have already made up their minds as to Z’s guilt or innocense. The only question here is, does the person testifying care enough about their career to not risk being caught lying on the stand. In Nakasone’s case, who is going to prove that he lied under oath if he claims that it was definitely not Z crying for help? On the other hand, if Z gets off, Nakasone’s career in his field will take a hit and he’ll be known as the guy who got it wrong (or one of them). JMO
This was defense witness who said you could not scientifically tell. Too many variants