to have to take away the coverage for our children, we re going to have to allow insurance companies to deny care for those of us who have paid for insurance and might need it but not get it because of a pre-existing condition. that s the choice being discussed here. i think the democrats actually need to do a better job making that choice very clear to people because if the court takes away these benefits for those of us who buy our health insurance, we re not going to be very happy about that and i think reasonable voters can understand that. congressman, what about from the gop perspective? can republicans spin those three scenarios to their snaifr. they ll try. both sides have their talking points and no matter what happens, i think what you have to remember is this is an unpopular bill to begin with by about a 10% margin, voters have felt they don t favor this bill. so striking it down may, in fact, help the administration fire up their base. but it adds to the republican narr
sentinel now also contacted by nbc news, says that he uses a different technology. his name is ed primeau. what he does is he took the audio recording with that scream from a website. he took that and he began to analyze the highs and the lows and the pitches of the voice. it s a little bit different of a technique. and sometimes not accepted in court. other times accepted in court. and he says based on the pitch and the range of the voice it could not be somebody who was 30 years or older. it would be somebody who was younger. but he does not conclude that it is trayvon s voice. he simply says that the voice analysis he does is somebody who is younger than george zimmerman. so that is the analysis, and of course this is all outside of law enforcement. this was initiated by the newspaper, the orlando sentinel, and now we have spoken to those experts and now you ve got the details of what they have concluded, alex.
whether you can prove it irrefutably. people are incredibly passionate about it and i understand that. take that into a court of law, jay, i mean, how do you work with that? it s been more than a month since the shooting takes place. you ve got people almost on a daily basis becoming more and more certain of their positions here. i think it s going to be difficult, but the answer to that question is when president reagan was shot, when john lennon was shot, at a point in time you re going to find a grand jury to consider an indictment or not an indictment and at another point in time, if there is an indictment, you re going to find a regular jury that can handle it. but i agree completely with the professor, it s gotten out of control. i wish the authorities would either fish or cut bait. present it to a grand jury and he either gets it s not helping. right. is this taking too long? is there some reason they are trying to scrutinize this so carefully now for fear of inflaming
the long ago. reporter: today s march madness, very much like it was seven decades ago. steals it away. that little fella is all over the court. when he played for the utah utes, a cinderella team if there ever was one. utah wins! whenever i started, just because of that half step that i could gain on my defender. his energy and boundless enthusiasm on the court stood out because nobody else played that way. his yutsz weutes were one of first national champs. then it came time to leave the country of the utes home court. the knicks were calling. masaka was the knicks first draft pick in the first-ever nba draft. in the 40s, the press fell in love with him, calling him little wat and kilo-wat for
talking about this morning? yes. the new news of the day now. would their analysis be able to be presented in a court of law? does it have the kind of admissible evidence, if you will, to do that? it could. the answer is there are you can get a voice exemplar and there are experts that might be able to determine whether it s his voice or not. again, it s the science. how much do you really hear on the 911 tape? yeah. also, when we say at one point people are taking a bone of context with, you know, saying that it s not the voice of george zimmerman is one thing. but then not saying perfectly 100% sure that it s trayvon martin is another. however, hasn t george zimmerman also said it s just the two of us, so logic conclusion, can you in a court of law jump from one point to say we done know for sure it s trayvon s according to technical, scientific information, but, duh, it is? the thing is the people who did the test couldn t get a hold of trayvon s voice.