If the source audio is not reviewable in court, none of it should be admissible as evidence. Algorithms are just laundering bad opinions like blood splatter analysis, so that there’s not even a personal reputation at stake.
>Algorithms are just laundering bad opinions like blood splatter analysis
You have way too much faith in the legal system. So many pseudo-scientific classes of evidence exist:
- Field sobriety tests
- Ballistic forensics
- Blood spatter analysis, as you mentioned
- Bite pattern analysis
- Burn / arson forensics
- Polygraph
- Biometrics under less-than-perfect conditions (your fingerprint reader on your phone works well because it's near perfect conditions. Crime scene partial finger prints are usually insufficient. Same for facial recognition -- works with your iPhone FaceID sensor, doesn't work with the gas station 480x320 camera)
- Most DNA and hair analysis
Pretty much all hocus pocus. Courts don't care. Anything for the conviction. Anyone hoping for fair scientific analysis in a court of law today is in for a rude awakening.
To be fair, polygraph tests aren't admissible as evidence in court, but I completely agree with your larger point. You also left out drug sniffing dogs, which are just a prop for the justification of an otherwise illegal search, and apparently drug sniffing cops too. There was recently a case where a cop claimed in court to have smelled unburned pot from several cars away while driving on the interstate. This was fortunately thrown out but it's not guaranteed.
