africa34 asked this question on 3/27/2000:

I'm writing a paper on controversial things in the area of phonetics. I was wondering how you all feel about the use of acoustic phonetics in criminal forensics -- the use of "voice prints" as evidence in a trial. Do you think this is a reliable source? Are there certain times when you feel it should not be used? Any other information would be greatly appreciated....I'm running out of time! Thank you so much.

Detective gave this response on 3/29/2000:

I graduated from the Federal Polygraph School at Ft. McClellan. This is where most of the U.S. Special Agents go to be trained to become polygraph examiners including the FBI. We had various lessons on other techniques through voice print technologies, etc. From what I recall they are not nearly accurate enough to be a reliable tool for submission as evidence in court. Now they can be very useful to narrow the scope of possible suspects, etc., but until the technology becomes available to guarantee 100% accuracy, to exclude all other possibilities, then it should be scrutinized heavily by the court before allowing the tests or supportive testimony to be admitted into evidence. I know it is being used in various court systems and I guess my concern is that it could be dangerous for jurors to consider this evidence by itself in a very serious matter.

Take care.

Michael Director of Investigations TACTICS Private Investigators http://www.tacticsone.com

The average rating for this answer is 5.