Exactly how is one supposed to determine what evidence is faked versus what evidence is not? Especially in the case where high technology has been used to mask that it is a fake?
>Exactly how is one supposed to determine what evidence is faked versus what evidence is not?
It's pretty simple. If the "evidence" can be created by software, it's not evidence. Perhaps some specially designed recording hardware might digitally sign a voice recording, and one might be inclined to trust that it was a real recording if the design of that hardware/software system was vetted.
But just for a recording? There's no point. Allowing a jury to decide that this recording is bad, but this other one is okay when they have no expertise to be able to determine if it is fake or not and none of the technical details either is just asking for prejudicial and even superstitious deliberation.
We are at the point where audio (and probably video) recordings no longer count as evidence of real world events. It's been this way for photographs for a long time already.
