[Spob]

I listened to part of Kip Kinkel's taped confession and parts of it
are largely unitelligible, not just because of Kinkel's blubbering but
largely because of the atrocious recording quality.

Others are similar - they set up an environment under the worst
possible conditions for recording audio and use some pedestrian
quality recording device or camcorder. Don't these people have A/V
consultants? I realize they're not trying to win some Hi-Fi audio
award but with something this important, you'd think they'd make some
minimal efforts at bumping up the quality.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Spob wrote:
I listened to part of Kip Kinkel's taped confession and parts of it
are largely unitelligible, not just because of Kinkel's blubbering but
largely because of the atrocious recording quality.

They're cops, not audio engineers :-)


Others are similar - they set up an environment under the worst
possible conditions for recording audio and use some pedestrian
quality recording device or camcorder. Don't these people have A/V
consultants? I realize they're not trying to win some Hi-Fi audio
award but with something this important, you'd think they'd make some
minimal efforts at bumping up the quality.

Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:35:41 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"Spob" wrote in message
...
I listened to part of Kip Kinkel's taped confession and parts of it
are largely unitelligible, not just because of Kinkel's blubbering but
largely because of the atrocious recording quality.

Others are similar - they set up an environment under the worst
possible conditions for recording audio and use some pedestrian
quality recording device or camcorder. Don't these people have A/V
consultants? I realize they're not trying to win some Hi-Fi audio
award but with something this important, you'd think they'd make some
minimal efforts at bumping up the quality.

They're going for a film-noire feel

But seriously, I think that part of the reason may be that the mikes are
hidden, and the seating arrangment may be casual. Of course, the suspect is
advised that he is being taped, but mikes in the face would disturb the
delicate psychological atmosphere that leads to confession.

You might ask, isn't it possible to get better sound with hidden mikes? I'm
sure it is, but the level of sophistication, from use, to post-processing,
is not justified. If I'm not mistaken, the taped confession has to be
transcribed, and it is not valid unless the suspect signs the transcript. In
that way, any ambiguities are removed.

It's the same way with courtroom stenography. The stenographer has a little
recording device, and the audio is just so-so, but such recordings are not
part of the court record. Only the stenographic record is. And the
stenographer will frequently break in and ask for a repeat, or clarification
of what someone just said.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

Interesting.

I have a question and you seem to be the man to answer it. Is it true
that court stenographers own the transcripts, and copies of
transcripts must be purchased from the stenographer, who can set any
price they want?

[Richard Corfield[_3_]]

On 2008-06-17, Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)

The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.

There are mics out there designed for discreet installation in rooms
that are basic cardoids or omnis that are pretty flush with wall or
ceiling. Some even offer phantom power as a feature. I'd have though
you could get reasonable quality, although obviously not as good a say
close micing.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[John Williamson]

Richard Corfield wrote:
On 2008-06-17, Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)

The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.

That's the usual setup here in interview rooms. The tape machine is a
dual cassette recorder, with one tape for the police & one for the
interviewee, which is handed to him/ her in a sealed bag immediately
after the interview, so that their lawyer can compare their copy with
the police transcripts & evidence given in court. The system is mono, &
the quality was only specified to be good enough for transcription. Auto
level control & the like, so the police don't need to do any more than
put the tapes in & push the record button, which is the only button on
the unit.

Some police forces now use video for interviews with a similar system of
giving the interviewee a copy of the tape afterwards.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Richard Corfield[_3_]]

On 2008-06-20, John Williamson wrote:

That's the usual setup here in interview rooms. The tape machine is a
dual cassette recorder, with one tape for the police & one for the
interviewee, which is handed to him/ her in a sealed bag immediately
after the interview, so that their lawyer can compare their copy with
the police transcripts & evidence given in court. The system is mono, &
the quality was only specified to be good enough for transcription. Auto
level control & the like, so the police don't need to do any more than
put the tapes in & push the record button, which is the only button on
the unit.

Some police forces now use video for interviews with a similar system of
giving the interviewee a copy of the tape afterwards.

It's good that the interviewee gets a copy.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[krp]

"Richard Corfield" wrote in
message
nal.littondale.dyndns.org...
On 2008-06-17, Romeo Rondeau wrote:

Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)

The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.

They use substandard equipment on purpose. Well - at least the copy used
in court or that the defense gets is ****. The reason isn't price because
there is some terribly good equipment out there for less than $100.

[Richard Corfield[_3_]]

On 2008-06-21, krp wrote:

Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from the
ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)

The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.

They use substandard equipment on purpose. Well - at least the copy used
in court or that the defense gets is ****. The reason isn't price because
there is some terribly good equipment out there for less than $100.

A guess, but I wonder if it's one of those industries where you have to
use specially certified equipment - even if better equipment is
available at lower cost.

There was the story a while back about someone who happened to have a
portable recorded in their pocket during an interview and used that
recording in defense.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

[krp]

"Richard Corfield" wrote in
message
nal.littondale.dyndns.org...

Keep in mind that there are some things that would be good for a
recording environment that wouldn't be good for police work. I'm sure
someone would notice the Sonex on the walls and Schoeps hanging from
the
ceiling and conclude they might be recording what they say :-)

The image I have from UK police dramas is a big obvious tape machine and
a boundary mic on the table, though that may not be the case.

They use substandard equipment on purpose. Well - at least the copy
used
in court or that the defense gets is ****. The reason isn't price because
there is some terribly good equipment out there for less than $100.

A guess, but I wonder if it's one of those industries where you have to
use specially certified equipment - even if better equipment is
available at lower cost.

There was the story a while back about someone who happened to have a
portable recorder in their pocket during an interview and used that
recording in defense.

You wouldn't suggest that the cops would EVER even consider "altering" a
recording would you? Cops would NEVER "fake" a recording, would they?

[Richard Kuschel]

krp wrote:
"Richard Corfield" wrote in
message
nal.littondale.dyndns.org...


There was the story a while back about someone who happened to have a
portable recorder in their pocket during an interview and used that
recording in defense.

You wouldn't suggest that the cops would EVER even consider "altering" a
recording would you? Cops would NEVER "fake" a recording, would they?

Maybe not fake it, but losing it is a possibility.

We had a case here (now in civil litigation) where the police had
several digital video cameras on a situation involving alleged police
mishandling of a possible suicide situation. It seems that only one of
the cameras had any image on it.(Several others "weren't working" as
they were using a new system and having difficulties with the
cameras.)

The surviving image was transferred to a computer.The original which
was recorded on some form of internal card on the camera was erased to
make space for further recording. Then, the copy on the computer which
had been viewed by several people "disappeared".
An IT person who worked for the city (conflict of interest?) tried to
recover the files, but the files had been erased at a very low level
in a spohisticated way and nothing was recoverable.

I have recovered audio in situations that exonerated some people and
convicted others. The truth is very powerful and the police and courts
should make every effort to record and keep it accurate for everyone's
protection.