Most trials will start with an establishment of expertise, and even in a courtroom, jurors are allowed to evaluate the testimony of a "expert" and do not have to accept everything every expert says (often there are experts with dueling opinions on each side). We all have ears, we all can hear, and actually, as a neuroscientist, I have quite a bit of expertise in perception and I certainly do not hear half of the things in the audio that the supposed expert hears, nor do I believe that even a guitar player has enhanced perception that would necessarily allow one to hear what the expert claims to hear. Furthermore, as a neuroscientist and memory expert, I can say very confidently that expectations shape perception (and working memory, which underlies the perception of language) and from my viewing of the program, it is evident to me (my opinion) that this putative expert went in with a very strong set of expectations. It was especially evident when he got defensive after learning about the time stamp. Finally, "no music" could be because the phone did not transmit it clearly because of where it was located relative to the source of the music and the proximity of the phone to the human speakers, and the sensitivity of the microphone to certain sound frequencies versus others. So, I'm content to say we all may hear it differently and can agree to disagree, I'm not content to be told that I must accept the conclusions of this one "expert" or someone else who plays the guitar.
on cold cases, and will run an episode about the Hedgepeth case on Sunday, April 22, 9pm. EDT, implying they will have some new material/info, so we'll see...:
