Yes, exactly. That is what "inconclusive" means. But I still go back to the fact that there is an eyewitness who both heard and saw Zimmerman yelling for help, and I'm not sure why an "audio forensic expert" would be needed at all. I do understand how the story feeds the sensationalism of the reporting...
It's a little different. In one case, there is enough evidence to analyze, and the analysis is inconclusive. But here, by the standards of the profession, there isn't even enough evidence to analyze. By the expert's own standards, it's inappropriate to bring this analytical tool to bear on the question.
-- I'm not sure why an "audio forensic expert" would be needed at all. I do understand how the story feeds the sensationalism of the reporting. --
That's it, that's the reason. And, if this gets to a law court, to attempt to undermine the eyewitness - but I think the testimony is inadmissible in court, because, by the expert's own standards, he cannot form an opinion. Therefore, he has nothing to add to getting to the truth of the matter.
Outside of the courtroom, he is free to blow smoke and direct away from the truth - that's what he's getting paid to do.
It's not. It's just an attempt from those that hope to poke some holes in Zimmerman's credibility. As if Martin was screaming for help for some 30 to 45 seconds while Zimmerman did what? The Mortician body said there was no indication of a fight on Martin....