Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 4:16:46 GMT
Molina — In a statement to the Public Prosecutor's Office, a police comrade clearly shows how the situation works. First, he says that he is a mere scribe, who has no training in the area of phonetics, but that he was called to make transcriptions. All this work in the world is done by trained people. Something that will have serious effects on a person's life cannot be thrown into the hands of a guy who claims to be incapable of doing it. Afterwards, this clerk was asked about the selection criteria. He states that he is instructed by his superior to select the pertinent and relevant excerpts for the investigation. That is, those who point to culpability. The limit between editing and editing is tenuous, but, in court, there can be neither one thing nor the other.
If it is proof, it has to be complete. ConJur — Can the expert interpret what was said? Molina — No. The International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, which is the most Iraq Telegram Number Data respected organization in this area, has a code of procedures. One of the items in this code says that the expert should at no time make a value judgment regarding the sincerity of the author of the conversation being transcribed. When it is interpreted, the sincerity of the person speaking is called into question. If the person says shirt, you transcribe shirt. If it says that shirt means “dollar”, the expert is violating the rule. ConJur — There is a PF ordinance saying that only what proves the materiality of the crime needs to be transcribed.
Molina — Yes, but who decides what should be transcribed? A clerk. I wonder why some big names, close to power, never appear on the recordings. Names that are well known and that we know are involved in strange consultancies. When Lula's brother was recorded and the recording was sent to the media, only an excerpt appeared. It's curious: they never record a little, but only a small part appears in the press. The impression that remains is that it was a free show. I wonder what the clerk's reaction would be if he happened to find a bombastic recording? Would he show it to his boss or would he try to negotiate directly with the source? ConJur — There is information that there is a very prosperous market for buying and selling recordings.
If it is proof, it has to be complete. ConJur — Can the expert interpret what was said? Molina — No. The International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics, which is the most Iraq Telegram Number Data respected organization in this area, has a code of procedures. One of the items in this code says that the expert should at no time make a value judgment regarding the sincerity of the author of the conversation being transcribed. When it is interpreted, the sincerity of the person speaking is called into question. If the person says shirt, you transcribe shirt. If it says that shirt means “dollar”, the expert is violating the rule. ConJur — There is a PF ordinance saying that only what proves the materiality of the crime needs to be transcribed.
Molina — Yes, but who decides what should be transcribed? A clerk. I wonder why some big names, close to power, never appear on the recordings. Names that are well known and that we know are involved in strange consultancies. When Lula's brother was recorded and the recording was sent to the media, only an excerpt appeared. It's curious: they never record a little, but only a small part appears in the press. The impression that remains is that it was a free show. I wonder what the clerk's reaction would be if he happened to find a bombastic recording? Would he show it to his boss or would he try to negotiate directly with the source? ConJur — There is information that there is a very prosperous market for buying and selling recordings.