Zimmerman Trial: Judge Excludes Voice Experts

Judge Debra Nelson has issued her order on the admissibility of the testimony of the state's proposed voice/speaker identification experts: They will not be allowed to testify. The experts, Tom Owen and Alan Reich, had claimed to be able to analyze the cries for help in the background of a witness' 911 call.

The order is here. It is very easy to read and understand. Shorter version: The techniques and methodologies used by Owen and Reich to determine who was or was not crying out in the background of the call are new and novel, are not generally accepted in the scientific community, and are unreliable and backed only by Owen and Reich, each of whom have a personal stake in the acceptance of their opinions. In addition, Reich's testimony is likely to confuse the issues and mislead the jury. [More...]

Quotes from the opinion:

"The purpose of Frye is to ensure the reliability of expert testimony."

...The scientific methodologies and techniques used by Mr. Owen and Dr. Reich are not reliable as they are not sufficiently established and not generally accepted in the scientific community.

...The proponent of opinion testimony that espouses new or novel scientific theories bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology. The State failed to carry its burden.

Some of the reasons for the finding:

Although the aural perception and spectral analysis are not new or novel, their application by the State's witnesses to the samples from the 911 call in this case is a scientific technique that is new and novel. There is no competent evidence that the scientific techniques used by Mr. Owen and Dr. Reich are generally accepted in the scientific field. There is no evidence to establish that their scientific techniques have been tested and found reliable.

...Both Mr. Owen and Dr. Reich testified in support of their own technologies and techniques. They have an interest in the outcome of this issue because it is their methodologies being tested. Mr. Owen acknowledged that he markets and owns a small financial interest in the software program he utilized as a basis for his opinion.

On relevancy and likelihood of confusion:

§90.403, Fla. Stat. (2013) provides in pertinent part, "Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."

...The Court finds that Dr. Reich's testimony regarding the amplified tapes would confuse issues, mislead the jury and, therefore, should be excluded from trial.

On Reich, the Court referred to the lack of any kind of blind testing. In a blind test, the expert would not know the facts of the case or the "listener bias" , where a listener with a biased outlook, often due to knowledge of the underlying facts, makes conclusions to support his or her preconceived notions. It was hypothesized that Dr. Reich, who took up the case based upon personal interest, subconsciously wanted to hear identifiable words. The Court finds that Dr. Reich's testimony regarding the amplified tapes would confuse issues, mislead the jury and, therefore, should be excluded from trial.

The order also deals a blow to biometric voice analysis in general:

The Court finds and concludes that aural perception and spectral analysis have been widely used for many years and are sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance within the scientific community. While biometric analysis has been available for several years, it is not as widely accepted at this time.

I was glad to see the order refer to the lack of blind testing. The Judge says of the defense experts, she found Dr. French most credible. She quotes him as stating:

He testified that Dr. Reich's opinions were affected by his prior knowledge of the facts of this case. As those in the field of forensic speech analysis must always be cognizant of this risk, he prefers to conduct blind analyses where he does not know the facts of the case.

She also notes that French testified that "one cannot tell the age of a speaker based upon the sound of his voice.

She cites all of four of the defense experts who emphatically stated a scream cannot be compared to spoken words. Specifically referring to French, she writes:

He explained that screaming under the type of stress present in this case changes the voice in an unpredictable manner and cannot be replicated in laboratory conditions. Moreover, without distinct words there are no characteristics that lend themselves to comparison. A forensic expert cannot hear the variables used with aural comparison in screams, including the pronunciation of certain phonemes, accents, speech rate, and pitch variations.

What the ruling means for the trial: The state can call witnesses who are familiar with the voices of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin to give an opinion as to who is speaking. The matter is then left to the jury to decide.

I started writing about the voice/speaker identification issues and Owen's EZ Voice software here. After reading Reich's report and the report of another proposed state expert whom it decided not to call a the Frye hearings, I wrote:

The jurors can listen to the tape and decide for themselves if it was Zimmerman on the tape. Lay witnesses who are familiar with Zimmerman and Martin's voice can probably give their opinion. The first state report is equivocal and a guesstimate. The second is a joke. The court should exclude these expert reports.

During the Frye Hearing, I opined that Owen's analysis should not be admitted under Frye or Daubert.

The methodology is skewed because he is comparing a scream to spoken words, there's too much background noise, the environmental and recording conditions were too different, the scream samples aren't long enough, the quantity of words for comparison is insufficient, there are pitch issues because the screamer was under emotional stress, etc. He can't even give an opinion beyond "probable" in his words that it was not Zimmerman screaming.

As to his biometric program, he shouldn't be the one to opine on whether it's accepted in the scientific community because he is the proprietor of the software and has made a career out of the reliability of spectrography. In other words, he's biased.

...The jury ...can listen to the 911 call and decide for themselves who they think is crying out for help. They don't need "expert" testimony and they certainly don't need unreliable, speculative, discredited conclusions.

The judge, in more polite language, agreed.

Also see the discussions on our George Zimmerman forums on Voice ID experts, the June 7 Frye hearing, the June 8 Frye Hearing, the June 17 Frye Hearing and the June 20 Frye Hearing and on Who is Screaming on the 911 call.

< Friday Night Open Thread | Snowden Flies to Russia, and Then? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A thing of beauty (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by rickroberts on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    Watching the provocateurs lose their ever lovin' minds as The Narrative continues to unravel is truly a thing of beauty.

    It's now Z-Man time, 24 / 7. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:40:57 PM EST
    Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.

    god help us all (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    At least we have the potential for 3 days of NCAA baseball to distract. Too bad Heat/Spurs wasn't the best of 21 to stretch us right through the carnival show starting tomorrow.

    good (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by pyrrho on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    I think GZ is guilty but Owen would only make the prosecution look shoddy, you can't get more signal by doubling up your data... that's ridiculous... it would have looked worse in front of a jury that it does not going before the jury.

    But Does It Make You Wonder? (none / 0) (#26)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    Why would the prosecution consider calling such obviously bad witnesses if they had any good evidence of Zimmerman's guilt?  They have that much money to burn?

    So, I take it the entire case... (none / 0) (#1)
    by MikeB on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    ....is based on attempting to convince the jury that it was indeed Martin screaming on the tape? Or have they simply set their sights higher hoping for a lesser charge?

    My biggest concern is that this trial sets a poor precedent and Judge Nelson is allowing it - I can't find any evidence of probable cause. It seems to be "possible" cause now. With this standard, anyone could be drug into a courtroom because there is only possible guilt. I didn't think our civil liberties allowed this. What is stopping any prosecutor from charging a person with treason because it is possible (however unlikely), but take the reduced penalty of a parking violation?

    This seems to be more of a civil liberties issue than a murder trial now - we may have a new standard for charging someone with a crime - possible cause.

    The standard of what is "probable cause" (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    is and has always been a low one.  In summary, paraphrasing the words of appellate judges nationwide, it is one based in experience in the rough and tumble of the streets and criminals.

    But, more to the point, probable cause is a determination that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed and more likely than not that the person accused is the one who did it.  That's it.

    In this case, we have one dead guy with formerly-vital fluids leaking out of bullet holes and a dispute - with the shooter's story about how he got to that place(as are most stories told by the shooters of now-dead guys) being viewable as possibly a bit self-serving.  

    I'm inclined to believe that, under the relevant Florida law, Zimmerman did have a good reason to shoot and will (or should) be able to establish justifiable self-defense.  But, when there's a dead body lying on the lawn with bullet holes in him, there's going to be probable cause (so long as the shooter is not a cop - they almost always walk).


    Preponderance Of Evidence (none / 0) (#12)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:24:55 PM EST
    But, more to the point, probable cause is a determination that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed and more likely than not that the person accused is the one who did it.

    No, that's 'preponderance of evidence'. Probable cause is a lower standard than that.


    probable cause (none / 0) (#6)
    by citizenjeff on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 06:21:55 PM EST
    Alan Dershowitz says probable cause hasn't been established in accordance with normal evidentiary standards.

    The correct decision (none / 0) (#4)
    by bmaz on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    Not sure why it took Nelson so long to issue it. Totally jams up the attorneys unnecessarily.

    Could have been (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 06:12:35 PM EST
    worse, I suppose.
    At least she didn't wait to issue her decision until right before the attorneys will be giving their opening statements.

    Can the defense call voice experts? (none / 0) (#7)
    by David in Cal on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 08:13:41 PM EST
    The judge ruled that these two voice recognition "experts" couldn't testify.  She said nothing about defense experts.  But, maybe that's because the defense never planned to call any experts.

    Does anyone know: Can the defense call voice experts?  If so, will they do so?

    the defense position is (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:43:24 PM EST
    voice experts cannot determine whose voice it is. Thus, they have no intention of calling experts to opine one way or the other. They would have had to notify the state of its intention to call the experts to give such an opinion and the time has passed for doing so.

    Martin's family will say its his voice, GZ's family or friends can testify its his voice. The defense is content withe letting the jury determine whose voice it is from assessing the testimony of the lay witnesses in conjunction with the circumstantial evidence and testimony of witnesses and law enforcement and medics at the scene, which lead to the logical conclusion it was GZ crying out for help. They don't think (and rightly so) that the  state's  witnesses who only formed opinions on who was screaming after learning a young person was shot will be persuasive.


    FBI analyst Hirotaka Nakasone (none / 0) (#32)
    by lily on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    said that the age of the person screaming could not be determined, his testimony might be included.

    Methinks defence already cooked their goose (none / 0) (#51)
    by gbrbsb on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:40:14 AM EST
    on that account. I mean if defence now presented experts to testify it was GZ's voice it would be more than suspect after having forced a Frye hearing in which they presented 3, (or was if 4), experts to precisely testify to the impossibility of identifying who was was shouting, yelling, or screaming. And remember GZ only ever claimed he shouted, yelled, screamed "Help", or "Help me", no reference about "I'm begging you" or other utterances, nor that he emitted several excruciatingly piercing shrieks as well as several long whines and moans.

    Nope, seems to me the defence just has to let SF, (she claims she recognises TM because mothers know their child's voice), and RZ senior (he claims he recognises it's GZ's because he heard him scream like it as a "teenager"), to fight it out as to who the jury goes with, and also let the jury while deliberating see if they can suss out at very least what most have already done after some very careful listening, i.e. that there is more than once voice yelling, shouting, screaming on the recording making it probable that both were emitting noises and/or utterances. So, which noises are whose could be the better question. Maybe RZ senior can pick out GZ's "helps" and SF recognises the "I'm begging you" and shrieks... whonose !


    amazing (none / 0) (#9)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:08:06 PM EST
    It seems amazing that the state would have wanted to proceed with such obviously flawed witnesses and their "expert testimony." . .  One thing that the judge noted is that Reich issued at least two reports . . . and in his reports, he claims to have heard irreconciliably different words on the tape, and neither Reich nor others can offer any good explanation as to what he heard or thought he heard, in whichever of the reports is "not correct."

    In other words, no doubt about it, Reich is "hearing things" that are not there, either in the report for the state, the report for the paper, or both.

    What is next for the state?  Having a star witness caught in lies or contradictions?

    But wait . . . I think I can see a news headline . . . trial judge denies expert voice testimony in Flordia case of shooting an unarmed, unarmed, unarmed teenager.

    la times article today (none / 0) (#10)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:19:07 PM EST
    Zimmerman judge rules experts can't testify . . . [!!!]

    " . . . audio experts will not be allowed to testify in the case of the neighborhood watch volunteer accused of second-degree murder in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

    However, the prosecution will be allowed to present any witnesses familiar with Martin's voice to testify, the judge stated. [!]

    (The same is true of the defense . . . but the LA times omits to mention that Zimmerman may have friends or relatives who will say they believe it was him . . .)

    Owen, the other prosecution experts, will not be allowed to testify, Nelson ruled.

    It seems that the LA times has a Freudian slip here . . . he speaks of "the other prosecution experts," as if the judge was excluding a number of them from testifying, in addition to Reich, who can't keep his story straight.


    Also . . . (none / 0) (#11)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:22:40 PM EST
    The LA times article omits giving any of the reasoning that persuaded the judge from permitting the experts from testifying . . .
    It repeats a few claims of defense witnesses and defense lawyers, as if they were self-serving, but nothing about why the judge found them more credible than Reich & Owen.

    Usually, the LA Times picks up (none / 0) (#18)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:58:10 AM EST
    its stories from the Miami Herald, a sister paper. The Miami Herald has been biased toward the TM side. (I was too lazy to look up this particular article.)

    you forgot (none / 0) (#15)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:08:04 AM EST
    'with skittles and iced tea".

    You're right (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    He was "armed" with Skittles and iced tea.



    you are so right (none / 0) (#52)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:39:51 AM EST
    opening statement and the prosecutor just said GZ was armed with a fruit drink and candy. Gee, how did I know that was coming?

    Not watching it (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    His reference to being "armed" with candy and a fruit drink was sarcastic.  My response was to your post, which (presumably) was not a sarcastic reference.

    I have a question... (none / 0) (#13)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 12:03:37 AM EST
    Can the Immunity issue still be raised? Before?  During/Midway point?  Or in Closing Arguments?

    It would seem things have gone >thismuch< closer to being able to raise Immunity.  IMO and certainly IANAL.

    8-)  Thank you.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:53:44 AM EST
    The request for immunity would come in a written form, a motion for immunity under 776.032.  There has to be some evidence for the court to use, to make a finding if it more likely than not that the use of deadly force was justified.  So, at least the state's evidence coupled with whatever is elicited on cross exam (some of which will be a description of Zimmerman's predicament) has to exist.  IOW, the earliest such a motion could be filed is at the close of state's evidence.  This is coincidentally the same point where the defense might file a motion for judgment of acquittal.

    The difference between deciding the motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for immunity is the standard of proof.  For a judgement of acquittal, the defense has to provide one theory of self defense that is not contradicted by competent evidence.  That theory of self defense can be "weak," as its only function is to produce reasonable doubt.

    In contrast, the standard of proof for immunity is that it has to be more likely than not that the self defense theory of the case is true.

    Back to timing.  As noted above, the defense can move for immunity at the close of the state's case.  It can also move for immunity at the close of the defense case, before the jury is charged with deliberation.  It can also move for immunity after the jury returns, as long as the jury does not return a guilty verdict (technically there is a way around this, too, but the hurdle is pretty high, and the chances are very slim both of a guilty verdict, and of the court taking a guilty verdict away from the jury).  If the jury returns "hung" or "not guilty," the defense can still move the trial court for immunity.  The Jarkas case is an example of a hung jury, followed by a judicial finding of immunity.

    Finally, outside of Nelson's courtroom, if there is a civil trial, I know of no barrier to move the civil court judge for a finding of immunity.


    cboldt, can you dumb that down for me? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 04:09:44 PM EST
    Is "immunity" where he can't be charged with anything because what he did is deemed legal (self-defense)?

    Does it differ with a judgement of acquittal in that the judgement of acquittal would be there's not enough evidence to convict him, where immunity would mean there's no crime at all?

    Sorry to ask a question that you guys have always known. Is immunity a Florida thing or does that exist by law everywhere? I've never heard that used that way - I just know where someone is given immunity to testify against another.


    Let Me Try to Help (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    Acquittal = Not Guilty = No future criminal liability = It is reasonable that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense.

    Immunity = No future civil or criminal liability = It is more likely than not that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense.


    So Immunity equals there (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    was no crime and no element of guilt at all since there's no civil liability either?

    Your acquittal answer - that's for a Judgement of Acquittal, right? Not acquittal by the jury? Or are they the same except the judge does one and the trial ends, and the jury does the other?


    To be painfully precise (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:30:10 PM EST
    It depends on your definition of "no crime" and "no element of guilt."

    But, the legal standard for immunity is that it is more likely than not Zimmerman was justified in use of force, therefore he cannot be sued in civil court (he can be sued, but the person suing pays for Zimmerman's defense, and loses the suit); which is different from the legal standard for a not guilty verdict.

    Acquittal, either by a jury or by a judge, is based on the "state did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the state did not disprove justified use of deadly force beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

    Back to the immunity, more likely than not standard (preponderance of the evidence), the decider, the judge, doesn't have to find it positively certain that the use of force was justified.  IOW, there can be a possibility that the use of force was not justified, which implies the possible existence of some element of "guilt" in a metaphysical sense.


    That's a different question from timing (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:18:25 PM EST
    Either way, immunity or acquittal, there is no criminal liability.  The criminal prosecution terminates with a "not guilty" verdict.

    "Not guilty" comes in a range of strength.  In order to be "not guilty" in a criminal trial, the state has to come short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  If, while deliberating, the jury has an abiding conviction that it was NOT self defense, but wavers on that abiding conviction, then the jury is instructed to render a not guilty verdict.  The wavering indicates reasonable doubt.

    In order to get immunity, the "jury" (they don't get to decide immunity, but it's the same role, played by a judge who has heard the evidence) has to find it is more likely than not that the use of deadly force was justified.

    Good question on immunity (from civil suit) in other states.  I am pretty sure that Florida is not unique in this regard.  The point is to prevent a thug or her family from suing somebody who used force in defense of the thug's violence.  Without some sort of immunity for the person who used force, even in self defense, the thug has a right to sue.


    Oh you just answered my hang up (none / 0) (#35)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:26:36 PM EST
    Immunity=from civil suit (because there's most likely not a crime at all). Right?

    In a legal sense (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:33:22 PM EST
    Immunity, in a legal sense, is a finding that the use of force was justified, and the person who used force should be spared the ordeal of arrest, incarceration and trial.

    Think of a woman who uses a hatpin on either a rapist or attempted rapist, and the rapist sues you for using the hatpin.  You did use a hatpin, and the use of force is a crime.

    Unless you have justification to use force.

    Lets indict you for using the hatpin, and you can make your case to the jury.  But, meanwhile, you are an accused criminal for the use of the hatpin.


    And they decided to delay, if they (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    do ask for/file for (whatever the lawyer does) immunity until a later point? They didn't give up the right, just didn't ask for it at the beginning? I was reading in the forum and I think that's what y'all said.

    I'll try not to drive you guys crazy during the trial. I really appreciate your patience with me. I can't watch most of tomorrow and Tuesday, but I should see the rest. I hope there's video of the openings.


    Immunity exists or not (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    The question is when and how does the law notice it.

    Immunity for justified use of force is supposed to keep people who are justified in use of force from being harassed by cops, prosecutors, judges, and thugs.  Back to the hatpin, if the thug is trying to rape you, and you use force to stifle the attack, why should you be charged, sued, and/or jailed?  On the other hand, if you just walk up to some stranger and stick a hatpin in his eye, well, you'll probably get the arrest, detention, charged and jailed treatment.

    Procedurally, there may be (timing) limitations imposed by a court that prohibit a person from asking for and obtaining what is rightfully theirs.  Statute of limitations is an example.

    Assuming Zimmerman was justified in his use of force, he "has immunity."  Immunity exists or not, depending on the justified use of force.  That immunity has turned out to be useful against the Sanford PD, but useless against the State Attorney.  The only way to get the State Attorney off your back is to get a judge to find in your favor.  As described above, Zimmerman still has the right to ask a judge to find that his use of force was justified; and he has other (lower standard of proof) ways to get the state attorney off his back.


    Voice Identification by Witnesses (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:15:45 AM EST
    Dr. French testified that the human voice changes so much (and such an unpredictable way) when one is screaming in a life or death situation that you can't even determine (in this case at least) whether the person screaming was a male or female or even whether or not he was a native English speaker.

    If this is true, then shouldn't the court prohibit  people who know Zimmerman or Martin's voice from testifying who is screaming on the call(s)?

    I Think So Too (none / 0) (#16)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:51:07 AM EST
    Perhaps the judge was relying on Dr. Doddington who stated, in effect, during the Frye hearing that relying the opinion somebody familiar with a voice is still the best method of identification.  Any witness who testifies that he can recognize the screams should be questioned about their experience in hearing screams of such desperation from the person in question, as well as others.  

    Prior Screams (none / 0) (#19)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:37:26 AM EST
    Any witness who testifies that he can recognize the screams should be questioned about their experience in hearing screams of such desperation from the person in question

    De la Rionda did put that question to Robert Sr., at the second bond hearing.


    Prior Screams (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 09:38:43 AM EST
    Since it is unlikely that anyone will testify that he or she has heard either Zimmerman or Martin screaming in a life threatening situation, I think this will probably be a wash.

    But no Followup (none / 0) (#22)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    IIRC, Mr. Zimmerman said he had heard George scream several times.  One would suppose both Ms. Fulton and Mr. Zimmerman were questioned in detail on this in their depositions.  Unless they could testify that they had often heard other screams to compare them with, both are unconvincing to me.

    IIRC (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    What does "IIRC" mean?

    If I remember (recall) correctly (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cylinder on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    If I remember [recall] correctly

    Ricky, are the depositions (none / 0) (#27)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    available to the public? In the Casey Anthony case, her parents' and her brother's were. Well, everyone's that I can think of, though, I didn't read them all. I did read her parents'.

    Those Depositions Are Not Currently Available (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 04:55:51 PM EST
    I am not sure under what conditions they might be released in the future.  Cbolt or Talkleft could probably cite the law on this.

    Depositions are court/public documents (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    You'll have to pay for them by the page, and the Sunshine Law has, IIRC, a timing function where the depositions aren't public until the trial is concluded.

    Ah, ok. I must have read those after the (none / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    trial then. In that case, there was so much discovery it was impossible to read it all. I know there was quite a bit released pre-trial.

    (OMG you should have just heard J V-M on CNN - talk about biased)


    screaming . . . (none / 0) (#41)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:52:55 PM EST
    for what it matters, I am one of those kooky people who gets caned at times.  And if you are being well-caned, you are liable to be screaming, shouting or yelling while being caned.  And, unless you think that the person who is caning you is going to stop based on your requests, you might easily scream screams that are not words, just a vocalization.  I don't remember if my screaming while being caned was of a different pitch or quality . . .  I doremember that after my first major session of screaming-while-being-caned, I was hoarse for a while.  I was putting a lot of energy into my screams, far more than I would when normally speaking.  (Oh, some are caned without screaming . . . and the same person might scream in some sessions and not others.)

    Ummmmmm........ (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Zorba on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    I really, really urge you to get some professional help.  This is way beyond "kooky."

    J V-M (none / 0) (#38)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    is outraged, to say the least, that those perfect experts were excluded. That was only part of her rant. If I wanted to see HLN, I'd have my TV on HLN.

    (Sorry Jeralyn for being a little off topic, but her big lead off gripe was voice experts)

    Who is J V-M? (none / 0) (#44)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 06:09:08 PM EST
    I don't watch that much TV so please help me out.  Thanks.

    I was surprised google brought it up (none / 0) (#45)
    by cboldt on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    Jane Velez-Mitchell

    Never heard of her.  My teevee is on TCM or baseball.  Teevee news makes people dumber, so I stay away from it.  It would be different if people took it as comedy.


    wouldn't watch her no (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 11:15:05 PM EST
    matter what. Or HLN's coverage of this trial.

    She has a show on HLN like (none / 0) (#46)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    Nancy Grace. Two screamers back to back. In every case they cover. I hadn't seen any of their coverage of this trial until she popped up on CNN. She yells instead of talks and thinks she knows everything.

    That's because she does know everything, ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 08:43:28 PM EST
    ... and further, she's never wrong.

    She once thought she was wrong, but it turns out that she was merely mistaken.