Testimony of Rukunuzzaman

Examination in Chief
Currently missing

Cross-examination on behalf of Chanchal Chandra Sarker-

I am an expert of audio voice record. I am not a video expert.

I received training about audio voice record in Bangladesh.

During the mentioned test, I did not verify the Baritone and Intonation ingredient. But, during our test, we relied on the Likelihood Ratio to give our opinion.

Likelihood Ratio is identified via the BATVOX  4.1 software.

Defence: This software is primitive and not being used anywhere in the world.

Prosecutor Mizanul Islam: He cannot say that, just because a new software is available out there, it is not redundant.

Deefence; But it an outdated device.

Amir Hossain: But it is a suggestion, the witness can just call it true or not true.

Prosecutor Mizanul Islam: This raises a question about all the trials happened in the past using this software as a tool to identify voice matching. Suppose there are 5 such software and we are using 3^rd gen or even the first gen, it does not imply that the one we have is useless just because newer/better software is there.

Defence: We did not say about any past trials. Just redundant.

Amir Hossain: Let is go, it is just a suggestion.

Judge 3: Objection overruled, I will take this suggestion.

It is not true that, the software used in the stated examination is outdated and imprecise.

Defence: We are walking in the blindness (as not video was exhibited but there is a mention of 2 videos in the seizure list).

Gazi Tamim then explained the contents of the videos, one being the record between Habibur Rhaman and Chanchal, and the other being a video containing sample voice of Chanchal.

It is not true that, I gave false testimony.

Cross-Examination on behalf of Absconding Accused Habibur Rahman, Md. Rashedul Islam, Moshiur Rahman and Tarikul Islam Bhuiyan by learned state defence counsel:

Adopted the previous cross and further questions.

In my testimony, by superior authority, I meant the Additional Police Super incharge of that post. He is not an expert in this matter.

It is not true that I falsely stated that: “I conducted a comparative examination of the voices contained in the two videos using voice forensics tools. In the comparative test of one of the voices present in the disputed conversation with the authenticated conversation of former DMP Commissioner Habibur Rahman, the LR value was found to be 9.56317. This means a match was found between the disputed voice and the authenticated voice of former Dhaka Metropolitan Police Commissioner Habibur Rahman. It is assumed that there is a match if the LR value is greater than 1.”

It is not true that, I did not conduct the stated test correctly.

It is not true that, I submitted a false report under the pressure of the Investigating Officer and my superiors.

(END)

The judge was angry when discussing about the next date and asked why they can’t do on 27^th, he asked if they will sit idle on 27^th and they are trying to conduct the court everyday and trials as quickly as possible. Thus, 27^th of November was fixed as the next date.