department should be on trial right along with mr. zimmerman. but one more thing, martin. for all this talk about the voices and all this testimony about identifying voices, it seems really strange to me that the judge didn't allow any of the experts to come in, even if the technology is flawed. even if you can't make it an exact sort of assessment of the voices, the fact that we're now hinging part of this case on random folk who don't have any training, who don't use any of this technology, to identify this voice, it just makes sense to me that we would have allowed that additional information into the trials of the jury, so they can make a better informed decision about this particular hinge point of the case. >> karen, why do you think that is? professor peterson makes an important point there. and that is that people who are related to each other are perhaps bound to say they hear the voice of their relative. that's why we needed some kind of independent science, as it were, around this. why was this ruled out? >> well, because the science isn't up to snuff. and one of the things that you have to do, we have these rules of evidence. and you have to authenticate, lay a foundation, and the witnesses are supposed to have