Welcome to Forensically Blogging - the official
blog of
AudioLex Forensics and JCAAT
Consulting
- we have modernised our printed newsletter
"Forensically Speaking" and launched ourselves - with
certain trepidation but great enthusiasm - into the blogosphere.
And about time too, we suspect, given that our
office technology has moved, over the last 20+ years, from a huge old
drum spectrogram with its own laboratory to a software programme on desktop or laptop, from downloading
audio files a few Mb at a time in separate files or physically
collecting evidence to using on-line systems for instant access from
just about anywhere. Police interviews are now recorded, so no more wading through badly type-written notes of interviews because our client claims he was verballed. I can discuss something with my favourite Arabic interpreter in Australia by email rather than driving through a blizzard to try talking to a less than helpful one in [UK city deleted] ...
So ... what else new?
Social media like blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn and so on have not only revolutionised the way we connect with friends, families, clients and colleagues (not to mention opposing experts), but have also provided a very rich source of forensic linguistic evidence. More on this later, but an interesting case still being argued is the Paul Ceglia / Mark Zuckerberg Facebook case.
I'll be using this blog to provide links to and comments on cases in and out of the news, technology, techniques, conferences and other events, publications and anything else that you the reader(s) or I think is useful or interesting. Hopefully we can get some contributions and discussions going. (Preferably but not mandatorily in English!)
Here are some to start with:
11th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/right-to-silence-law-changed-20120814-2462p.html
The right to silence will be watered down under changes announced today by the O'Farrell government as part of its response to bikie gang violence.
People will be warned that they may risk harming their defence in court if they refuse to give police information about a crime under proposed new laws.
This will be changed to: "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say and do may be given in evidence. Do you understand?" (follow link for rest of article)
Case report "Mi Casa no es tu Kazaa"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/14/kazaa_german_trademark/
part of the discussion: The second syllable of Casa starts with the letter 's', while the mark
applied for Kazaa contains the quite unusual letter 'z', Sharman argued.
Moreover, the double letter 'a' is atypical in the German language.
From a phonetic point of view, Casa is pronounced as the Spanish word
'casa', with the emphasis on the first syllable 'ca' and a soft and
short sound for the second syllable. The Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market, however, came to the conclusion that the trade marks
indeed are phonetically similar in the German language.
Next Forensic Linguistics Conference:
11th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law
11th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law
of the International Association of Forensic Linguists (IAFL)
24th-27th June, 2013
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, UNAM
(National Autonomous University of Mexico)
Proposed Legislation
The right to silence will be watered down under changes announced today by the O'Farrell government as part of its response to bikie gang violence.
People will be warned that they may risk harming their defence in court if they refuse to give police information about a crime under proposed new laws.
It's been too easy to say: 'I have nothing to say'. Jurors are smart enough to know if there is something suspicious about evidence which suddenly appears at a trial and is designed to get the accused off.The caution police now give is: "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"
This will be changed to: "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say and do may be given in evidence. Do you understand?" (follow link for rest of article)
Which would bring it into line with the UK.
ReplyDelete