You are currently browsing the daily archive for June 10, 2011.

Jeff S. Spivac - Founder, Covert Sciences

The double standards that are patent in the report of Christof Heyns on the Channel 4 video almost defy belief. I have already pointed out how he falsified what his predecessor said about Siri Hewa, while himself using experts who had previously acted as advisers on this same issue, all from the same country which, at least if the public pronouncements of some of its leading diplomats are anything to go by, seems to have prejudged several issues.

These experts have finally admitted that the footage has been edited. This was not mentioned previously, whereas now it is trotted out as providing very simple explanations of what seemed inexplicable previously. Since Alston had previously claimed that, while there were ‘a small number of characteristics which the experts were not able to explain….Each of these characteristics can, however, be explained in a manner which is entirely consistent with the conclusion that the videotape appears to be authentic’.

Why then were these not explained previously? The answer seems to lie in the fact that, until it became too obvious for even this bunch of so-called experts to deny, the fact that the video was edited was suppressed.

Grant Fredricks - Avid Editing Solutions

But, in admitting that the video was edited, it is stressed that this was only ‘the type of rudimentary editing possible on a mobile phone’. There is no attempt however at explaining why, in the course of this editing, the order in which events are supposed to have occurred has been transposed. As Grant Fredericks puts it, ‘The first four segments were actually recorded in the following chronological order:

• Segment 3,

• Segment 2,

• Segment 1,

• Segment 4’.

The experts go out of their way to claim that the events in the video are authentic, which suggests that they have completely missed the point of the initial Sri Lankan government reaction. Mr Alston brought a video to our attention and we claimed that this video had been tampered with. This was initially denied, but now it has been granted that not only was the video edited, but that the events it depicts were transposed. None of this was admitted earlier, which surely suggests that there should be further investigation of those who supplied the video before it can be so conclusively asserted that a prima facie case has been established. Read the rest of this entry »

Rajiva Wijesinha

June 2011
« May   Jul »
%d bloggers like this: